依据WCAG 2.2设计和检查Web、iOS及Android界面,核查读屏标签、键盘操作、配色对比度和操作目标尺寸,使界面支持辅助技术。
- 为纯图标按钮添加说明
- 检查键盘操作与模态框焦点
- 检查对比度与操作目标尺寸
按顺序追踪按钮和表单操作引发的状态变化,排查共享状态被意外重置、异步处理竞争等导致界面行为异常的原因,并提出具体修复方案。
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.
按执行顺序追踪按钮和表单操作,调查界面未按预期工作的原因。首先整理多个组件共用的状态,列出各项操作会修改或重置的字段。再依据这份对应表,检查后续调用是否撤销先前修改、异步完成顺序是否引发竞争、是否读取旧值、是否遗漏必要步骤,以及是否受到useEffect干扰。发现的问题会附上位置、严重程度、预期行为、实际状态和具体修复建议。
适合单个函数看不出问题,但用户反映“按钮没有反应”的情况。涉及共享状态的代码大幅改动后,或发布前检查关键操作时,也可使用。
全应用审查工作量较大,因此提供按页面或受影响的状态管理范围缩小审查范围的方法。API本身的缺陷、外观与布局问题,以及性能问题,需要使用其他调查方法。
本介绍由 AI(OpenAI Codex)根据公开的 SKILL.md 撰写。准确的规格请查看下方原文。
AI 仅根据 SKILL.md 的内容,从 4 个方面进行了评估。星标数和热度不计入评估。
总分按每项 A=25 分、B=15 分、C=5 分相加。 由 AI(OpenAI Codex)于 2026年10月19日 评估。仅供参考,安装前请同时查看原文。
安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
Find bugs that static code reading misses: state interaction side effects, race conditions between sequential calls, and handlers that silently undo each other.
Traditional debugging checks:
But it does NOT check:
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.
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)?
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
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:
handler() {
setState_A(true) // sets X = true
setState_B(null) // side effect: resets X = false
}
// Result: X is false. First call was pointless.
handler() {
fetchA().then(() => setState({ loading: false }))
fetchB().then(() => setState({ loading: true }))
}
// Result: final loading state depends on which resolves first
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])
// 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
handler() {
if (someState) { // someState is ALWAYS false at this point
doTheActualThing() // never reached
}
}
// Button sets stateX = true
// A useEffect watches stateX and resets it to false
// User sees nothing happen
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]
This audit is expensive. Scope it appropriately:
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.
/superpowers:systematic-debugging (which finds the other 54 bug types)/superpowers:verification-before-completion (which verifies fixes work)/superpowers:test-driven-development — every bug found here should get a testThreadList.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:
Click-path audit catches it because:
selectThread resets composeMode还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
依据WCAG 2.2设计和检查Web、iOS及Android界面,核查读屏标签、键盘操作、配色对比度和操作目标尺寸,使界面支持辅助技术。
从指令、记忆、工具执行和界面显示等十二个层面排查人工智能代理故障,依据代码和日志梳理原因,按严重程度列出问题并提出修复方案。
用实际开发任务比较多个编程智能体,记录成功率、可获取的API费用、耗时和重复运行的稳定性,为工具选型及更新后的性能评估提供数据。
设计和调整AI智能体使用的工具、输入与返回格式,明确出错后的恢复、重试和停止条件,管理上下文信息量,并以完成率、重试次数和成功任务成本评估改进。
根据错误信息和执行环境,分析AI代理反复失败或重复操作的原因。通过小范围、可撤销的恢复操作检验假设,并将结果与依据整理成可供交接的报告。
在AI代理反复失败或重复操作时,记录错误与环境前提、排查原因,采取影响有限的恢复操作,并汇总结果和证据,为有依据的重试与交接提供支持。