accessibility
Design, implement, and audit inclusive digital products using WCAG 2.2 Level AA. Use when building or auditing UI that must meet WCAG 2.2 Level AA, or when…
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
$ npx -y skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill click-path-audit --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/click-path-auditContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
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
name: click-path-audit 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." metadata: origin: community
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 everythingFor 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 firstconst [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
Your agent can write code, but ECC gives it a coordinated engineering system and toolbox: it plans before it builds, verifies changes with tests, reviews its own work from a fresh context, remembers what matters, and turns repeated wins into reusable skills
Repo: affaan-m/ECC
Design, implement, and audit inclusive digital products using WCAG 2.2 Level AA. Use when building or auditing UI that must meet WCAG 2.2 Level AA, or when…
Full-stack diagnostic for agent and LLM applications. Audits the 12-layer agent stack for wrapper regression, memory pollution, tool discipline failures,…
Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics. Use when…
Design and optimize AI agent action spaces, tool definitions, and observation formatting for higher completion rates. Use when defining or revising an agent's…
Structured self-debugging workflow for AI agent failures using capture, diagnosis, contained recovery, and introspection reports. Use when an agent run fails…
Add x402 payment execution to AI agents with per-task budgets, spending controls, and non-custodial wallets. Supports Base through agentwallet-sdk and X Layer…