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.

Quality

77%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/click-path-audit/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is tdg-personal/click-path-audit

Quality

Content

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured, actionable audit procedure with concrete templates and a clear step sequence. Main weaknesses are redundancy (the motivating bug is retold) and a long single-file layout that could split the pattern library and worked example into references.

Suggestions

Consolidate the 'New Email' example into one place; the opening 'Real example' and the closing 'Example: The Bug That Inspired This Skill' section cover the same ground.

Move the six bug-pattern definitions and the full worked store example into a references/ file, keeping SKILL.md as an overview that links to them.

Add an explicit verification/retry checkpoint in Step 3 (e.g. re-trace the handler after a proposed fix to confirm the conflict is resolved).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient and free of basic-concept padding, but the 'New Email' bug is told twice (opening 'Real example' and the closing 'Example: The Bug That Inspired This Skill' section) and the Problem/How-It-Works/Example sections overlap; could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, executable templates: a state-store side-effect map format, a per-touchpoint audit format, six named bug patterns with code, and a structured report format; minor gaps in that some steps are procedural rather than copy-paste code.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Clear three-step sequence (Map State Stores -> Audit Each Touchpoint -> Report) with explicit numbered sub-steps (1-6 in How It Works); as a read-only audit it needs no destructive-operation validation, so no cap applies, but explicit error-recovery checkpoints are light.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into clearly headed sections with no bundle files present; however the pattern library and full worked example are inlined in a ~230-line file where they could arguably live in separate reference files.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

87%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description: third-person voice, concrete actions, explicit 'Use when' triggers, and a clearly distinct niche. Minor room to surface a couple more natural trigger phrases directly in the description.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the concrete action ('Trace every user-facing button/touchpoint through its full state change sequence') and several specific bug classes ('cancel each other out', 'wrong final state', 'inconsistent state'); not quite exhaustive coverage of the full audit output, hence 4 not 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' (trace touchpoints through state changes to find interaction bugs) and 'when' with concrete trigger phrases in the 'Use when:' clause.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural phrases users would say ('broken buttons', 'systematic debugging found no bugs', 'major refactor touching shared state stores'); good coverage but a few common variations (e.g. 'button does nothing') sit only in the body, not the description.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (UI state-change interaction auditing) distinct from generic debugging, and explicitly differentiates from systematic-debugging; minimal conflict risk.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: affaan-m/ECC
Path: skills/click-path-audit/SKILL.md
Commit: 06c5e11

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.