Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

click-path-audit(点击路径审核)

用于辅助安全审计、权限检查、凭据风险、认证流程和常见漏洞排查。它适合让 Agent 梳理敏感配置、检查依赖风险、分析鉴权逻辑或生成安全复核清单。使用时不能把工具输出直接当最终结论,涉及密钥、令牌、用户数据或生产系统时,应先确认最小权限、脱敏方式和操作边界。

click-path-audit 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 3,377。

总安装 44,688周安装 1,875GitHub Stars 170,303下载 15,656核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:click-path-audit(点击路径审核)
来源仓库:https://github.com/affaan-m/everything-claude-code
仓库路径:skills/click-path-audit
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/everything-claude-code --skill click-path-audit
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/everything-claude-code --skill click-path-audit

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

click-path-audit 用于安全审计与权限检查,可识别凭据风险、认证流程漏洞及常见安全问题。它适合梳理敏感配置、分析鉴权逻辑或生成安全复核清单。使用时不能直接采纳输出结论,需人工复核关键操作如密钥管理或用户数据处理。涉及生产系统时应确认最小权限原则和操作边界,防止误删或越权访问。

适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/click-path-audit

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/everything-claude-code --skill click-…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

click-path-audit 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/everything-claude-code --skill click-path-audit。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

click-path-audit 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

click-path-audit 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

click-path-audit 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

click-path-audit 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 44,688 次,近一周安装 1,875 次,下载 15,656 次,GitHub 170,303 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

click-path-audit 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 来源仓库有 170,303 星,维护活跃度相对可查。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
click-path-audit

点击路径审核 · 本页

44,688170,303需要联网未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

/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

平台分布

Codex

33.38%
按下载量换算5,226

Claude

32.7%
按下载量换算5,120

Cursor

16.94%
按下载量换算2,652

Gemini CLI

9.33%
按下载量换算1,461

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills