Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

click-path-audit

Trace button clicks and form actions through each state change to uncover conflicting updates, unintended resets, and asynchronous timing problems. Report where the final screen behavior differs from what the user expects, with specific fixes.

OriginalShow the original description

Trace every user-facing button/touchpoint through its full state change sequence to find bugs where functions individually work but cancel each other out, produce wrong final state, or leave the UI in an inconsistent state. Use when: systematic debugging found no bugs but users report broken buttons, or after any major refactor touching shared state stores.

See how to install

Good for

  • Investigating buttons that appear to do nothing
  • Checking shared state after a major refactor
  • Auditing critical user flows before release
  • Reviewing callers of modified Zustand actions

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md7.8 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

/click-path-audit — Behavioural Flow Audit

Find bugs that static code reading misses: state interaction side effects, race conditions between sequential calls, and handlers that silently undo each other.

The Problem This Solves

Traditional debugging checks:

  • Does the function exist? (missing wiring)
  • Does it crash? (runtime errors)
  • Does it return the right type? (data flow)

But it does NOT check:

  • Does the final UI state match what the button label promises?
  • Does function B silently undo what function A just did?
  • Does shared state (Zustand/Redux/context) have side effects that cancel the intended action?

Real example: A "New Email" button called setComposeMode(true) then selectThread(null). Both worked individually. But selectThread had a side effect resetting composeMode: false. The button did nothing. 54 bugs were found by systematic debugging — this one was missed.


How It Works

For EVERY interactive touchpoint in the target area:

1. IDENTIFY the handler (onClick, onSubmit, onChange, etc.)
2. TRACE every function call in the handler, IN ORDER
3. For EACH function call:
   a. What state does it READ?
   b. What state does it WRITE?
   c. Does it have SIDE EFFECTS on shared state?
   d. Does it reset/clear any state as a side effect?
4. CHECK: Does any later call UNDO a state change from an earlier call?
5. CHECK: Is the FINAL state what the user expects from the button label?
6. CHECK: Are there race conditions (async calls that resolve in wrong order)?

Execution Steps

Step 1: Map State Stores

Before auditing any touchpoint, build a side-effect map of every state store action:

For each Zustand store / React context in scope:
  For each action/setter:
    - What fields does it set?
    - Does it RESET other fields as a side effect?
    - Document: actionName → {sets: [...], resets: [...]}

This is the critical reference. The "New Email" bug was invisible without knowing that selectThread resets composeMode.

Output format:

STORE: emailStore
  setComposeMode(bool) → sets: {composeMode}
  selectThread(thread|null) → sets: {selectedThread, selectedThreadId, messages, drafts, selectedDraft, summary} RESETS: {composeMode: false, composeData: null, redraftOpen: false}
  setDraftGenerating(bool) → sets: {draftGenerating}
  ...

DANGEROUS RESETS (actions that clear state they don't own):
  selectThread → resets composeMode (owned by setComposeMode)
  reset → resets everything

Step 2: Audit Each Touchpoint

For each button/toggle/form submit in the target area:

TOUCHPOINT: [Button label] in [Component:line]
  HANDLER: onClick → {
    call 1: functionA() → sets {X: true}
    call 2: functionB() → sets {Y: null} RESETS {X: false}  ← CONFLICT
  }
  EXPECTED: User sees [description of what button label promises]
  ACTUAL: X is false because functionB reset it
  VERDICT: BUG — [description]

Check each of these bug patterns:

Pattern 1: Sequential Undo

handler() {
  setState_A(true)     // sets X = true
  setState_B(null)     // side effect: resets X = false
}
// Result: X is false. First call was pointless.

Pattern 2: Async Race

handler() {
  fetchA().then(() => setState({ loading: false }))
  fetchB().then(() => setState({ loading: true }))
}
// Result: final loading state depends on which resolves first

Pattern 3: Stale Closure

const [count, setCount] = useState(0)
const handler = useCallback(() => {
  setCount(count + 1)  // captures stale count
  setCount(count + 1)  // same stale count — increments by 1, not 2
}, [count])

Pattern 4: Missing State Transition

// Button says "Save" but handler only validates, never actually saves
// Button says "Delete" but handler sets a flag without calling the API
// Button says "Send" but the API endpoint is removed/broken

Pattern 5: Conditional Dead Path

handler() {
  if (someState) {        // someState is ALWAYS false at this point
    doTheActualThing()    // never reached
  }
}

Pattern 6: useEffect Interference

// Button sets stateX = true
// A useEffect watches stateX and resets it to false
// User sees nothing happen

Step 3: Report

For each bug found:

CLICK-PATH-NNN: [severity: CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]
  Touchpoint: [Button label] in [file:line]
  Pattern: [Sequential Undo / Async Race / Stale Closure / Missing Transition / Dead Path / useEffect Interference]
  Handler: [function name or inline]
  Trace:
    1. [call] → sets {field: value}
    2. [call] → RESETS {field: value}  ← CONFLICT
  Expected: [what user expects]
  Actual: [what actually happens]
  Fix: [specific fix]

Scope Control

This audit is expensive. Scope it appropriately:

  • Full app audit: Use when launching or after major refactor. Launch parallel agents per page.
  • Single page audit: Use after building a new page or after a user reports a broken button.
  • Store-focused audit: Use after modifying a Zustand store — audit all consumers of the changed actions.

Recommended agent split for full app:

Agent 1: Map ALL state stores (Step 1) — this is shared context for all other agents
Agent 2: Dashboard (Tasks, Notes, Journal, Ideas)
Agent 3: Chat (DanteChatColumn, JustChatPage)
Agent 4: Emails (ThreadList, DraftArea, EmailsPage)
Agent 5: Projects (ProjectsPage, ProjectOverviewTab, NewProjectWizard)
Agent 6: CRM (all sub-tabs)
Agent 7: Profile, Settings, Vault, Notifications
Agent 8: Management Suite (all pages)

Agent 1 MUST complete first. Its output is input for all other agents.


When to Use

  • After systematic debugging finds "no bugs" but users report broken UI
  • After modifying any Zustand store action (check all callers)
  • After any refactor that touches shared state
  • Before release, on critical user flows
  • When a button "does nothing" — this is THE tool for that

When NOT to Use

  • For API-level bugs (wrong response shape, missing endpoint) — use systematic-debugging
  • For styling/layout issues — visual inspection
  • For performance issues — profiling tools

Integration with Other Skills

  • Run AFTER /superpowers:systematic-debugging (which finds the other 54 bug types)
  • Run BEFORE /superpowers:verification-before-completion (which verifies fixes work)
  • Feeds into /superpowers:test-driven-development — every bug found here should get a test

Example: The Bug That Inspired This Skill

ThreadList.tsx "New Email" button:

onClick={() => {
  useEmailStore.getState().setComposeMode(true)   // ✓ sets composeMode = true
  useEmailStore.getState().selectThread(null)      // ✗ RESETS composeMode = false
}}

Store definition:

selectThread: (thread) => set({
  selectedThread: thread,
  selectedThreadId: thread?.id ?? null,
  messages: [],
  drafts: [],
  selectedDraft: null,
  summary: null,
  composeMode: false,     // ← THIS silent reset killed the button
  composeData: null,
  redraftOpen: false,
})

Systematic debugging missed it because:

  • The button has an onClick handler (not dead)
  • Both functions exist (no missing wiring)
  • Neither function crashes (no runtime error)
  • The data types are correct (no type mismatch)

Click-path audit catches it because:

  • Step 1 maps selectThread resets composeMode
  • Step 2 traces the handler: call 1 sets true, call 2 resets false
  • Verdict: Sequential Undo — final state contradicts button intent

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

accessibility

FreeSummary

Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC283.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

agent-architecture-audit

FreeSummaryAI rating 80

Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.

  • Investigating failures that appear only inside an agent application
  • Tracing old conversation content leaking into new sessions
  • Checking skipped or falsely claimed tool execution
affaan-m/ECC283.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

agent-eval

FreeSummaryAI rating 80

Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.

  • Comparing coding agents on real development tasks
  • Evaluating a new tool or model before adoption
  • Checking performance after agent updates
affaan-m/ECC283.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.

  • Define an AI agent’s tool set and input formats
  • Make tool results and next steps easier to interpret
  • Specify safe retries and stopping conditions
affaan-m/ECC283.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

agent-introspection-debugging

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.

  • Diagnosing repeated failures in an agent run
  • Investigating loops through the same tool calls
  • Reviewing output degradation as context grows
affaan-m/ECC283.6KUpdated Oct 5, 2026

agent-introspection-debugging

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.

  • Diagnosing repeated tool calls with no progress
  • Investigating quality loss as context grows
  • Checking file paths and environment mismatches
affaan-m/ECC283.6KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

See all skills by affaan-m

Report a problem with this skill