Find bugs that static code reading misses: state interaction side effects, race conditions between sequential calls, and handlers that silently undo each other.
Works with
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionclick-path-auditExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches click-path-audit from affaan-m/everything-claude-code and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate click-path-audit. Access via /click-path-audit in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
0
total installs
0
this week
142.9K
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
142.9K
stars
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 composeModeMake data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
shadcn/improve
mattpocock/skills
parcadei/continuous-claude-v3
cursor/plugins
ailabs-393/ai-labs-claude-skills
pproenca/dot-skills
click-path-audit fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
click-path-audit has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
click-path-audit fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
click-path-audit is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: click-path-audit is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
click-path-audit is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: click-path-audit is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: click-path-audit is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
click-path-audit is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: click-path-audit is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
showing 1-10 of 55