Skip to content
click-path-audit logo

/click-path-audit — Behavioural Flow Audit

click-path-audit

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.

affaan-m/ecc8.3Kinstalls273.3Kstars

SKILL.md

Full skill instructions

/​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

More skills from affaan-m

coding-standards logo
affaan-m/ecc

coding-standards

Baseline cross-project coding conventions for naming, readability, immutability, and code-quality review. Use detailed frontend or backend skills for framework-specific patterns.

273.3K 14K
View
golang-testing logo
affaan-m/ecc

golang-testing

Go testing patterns including table-driven tests, subtests, benchmarks, fuzzing, and test coverage. Follows TDD methodology with idiomatic Go practices.

273.3K 13.1K
View
docker-patterns logo
affaan-m/ecc

docker-patterns

Docker and Docker Compose patterns for local development, container security, networking, volume strategies, and multi-service orchestration.

273.3K 12.7K
View

Spring Boot architecture patterns, REST API design, layered services, data access, caching, async processing, and logging. Use for Java Spring Boot backend work.

273.3K 12.2K
View
video-editing logo
affaan-m/ecc

video-editing

AI-assisted video editing workflows for cutting, structuring, and augmenting real footage. Covers the full pipeline from raw capture through FFmpeg, Remotion, ElevenLabs, fal.ai, and final polish in Descript or CapCut. Use when the user wants to edit video, cut footage, create vlogs, or build video content.

273.3K 12.2K
View
python-patterns logo
affaan-m/ecc

python-patterns

Pythonic idioms, PEP 8 standards, type hints, and best practices for building robust, efficient, and maintainable Python applications.

273.3K 12.1K
View
frontend-slides logo
affaan-m/ecc

frontend-slides

Create stunning, animation-rich HTML presentations from scratch or by converting PowerPoint files. Use when the user wants to build a presentation, convert a PPT/PPTX to web, or create slides for a talk/pitch. Helps non-designers discover their aesthetic through visual exploration rather than abstract choices.

273.3K 12.1K
View
api-design logo
affaan-m/ecc

api-design

REST API design patterns including resource naming, status codes, pagination, filtering, error responses, versioning, and rate limiting for production APIs.

273.3K 11.9K
View
django-patterns logo
affaan-m/ecc

django-patterns

Django architecture patterns, REST API design with DRF, ORM best practices, caching, signals, middleware, and production-grade Django apps.

273.3K 11.9K
View
postgres-patterns logo
affaan-m/ecc

postgres-patterns

PostgreSQL database patterns for query optimization, schema design, indexing, and security. Based on Supabase best practices.

273.3K 11.9K
View
tdd-workflow logo
affaan-m/ecc

tdd-workflow

Use this skill when writing new features, fixing bugs, or refactoring code. Enforces test-driven development with 80%+ coverage including unit, integration, and E2E tests.

273.3K 11.6K
View
prompt-optimizer logo
affaan-m/ecc

prompt-optimizer

Analyze raw prompts, identify intent and gaps, match ECC components (skills/commands/agents/hooks), and output a ready-to-paste optimized prompt. Advisory role only — never executes the task itself. TRIGGER when: user says "optimize prompt", "improve my prompt", "how to write a prompt for", "help me prompt", "rewrite this prompt", or explicitly asks to enhance prompt quality. Also triggers on Chinese equivalents: "优化prompt", "改进prompt", "怎么写prompt", "帮我优化这个指令". DO NOT TRIGGER when: user wants the task executed directly, or says "just do it" / "直接做". DO NOT TRIGGER when user says "优化代码", "优化性能", "optimize performance", "optimize this code" — those are refactoring/performance tasks, not prompt optimization.

273.3K 11.3K
View

Popular AI tools

Kaiber logo
Video

Kaiber

Generate, edit, and beat-sync AI video with leading models in one workspace.

Paid
View
Vimcal logo
Productivity

Vimcal

The world's fastest calendar for remote work

Free
View

Transform Your Design with AI Designer by ImgCreator.ai

Freemium
View
Akool AI logo
Content & writing

Akool AI

Revolutionizing Video Production with AI-Powered Creativity

Paid
View

Extend an image past the frame and let AI fill the new aspect ratio.

Freemium
View
StarByFace logo
Security

StarByFace

Discover your celebrity doppelgänger with StarByFace!

Free
View
C

ChainClarity explains 700+ crypto whitepapers in plain English, with layered summaries, comparisons, research tools, alerts, and a $4.99 Pro plan.

Freemium
View
Opus Clip logo
Coding & apps

Opus Clip

Opus.ai: Revolutionize Your Web Experience

Free
View