---

name: comprehensive-tracing description: Enforces thorough code analysis with all entry points, complete flow tracing, architectural reasoning, and consumption tracking version: 1.0.0 triggers: keywords: - analyze - workflow - how does - trace - deep dive - explain - search_code - go_to_definition - find_references intent_patterns: - "understand how * works" - "find all * that" - "trace the * flow" - "search for *" - "find where * is defined" - "find all references to *" tool_triggers: - mcp__crispy-code-intel__search_code - mcp__crispy-code-intel__go_to_definition - mcp__crispy-code-intel__find_references enforcement: suggest

Comprehensive Tracing Standards

When using MCP tools (search_code, go_to_definition, find_references) or analyzing code workflows, ALWAYS follow these standards:

Thoroughness Requirements

1. Multi-Path Discovery

• NEVER stop at the first entry point found
• Ask: "What OTHER places trigger this behavior?"
• Document ALL paths (UI triggers, API calls, events, scheduled tasks)

2. End-to-End Tracing

For each entry point, trace the complete data flow:

CopyUI Component → Hook → Data Provider → Service → Database

3. Architectural Reasoning

Don't just describe WHAT - explain WHY:

• ❌ "Uses zodResolver for validation"
• ✅ "Uses zodResolver with mode: 'onBlur' for performance (prevents re-render on every keystroke)"

4. Consumption Over Definition

Show WHERE things are used, not just defined:

• ❌ "Schema defined at validation/opportunities.ts:413"
• ✅ "Schema defined at validation/opportunities.ts:413, consumed by CloseOpportunityModal (line 56) for form validation and opportunities.service.ts (line 145) for API boundary validation"

5. File:Line Citations

Every claim must include precise location:

• Component definition: src/components/Modal.tsx:45-120
• Hook usage: src/hooks/useForm.ts:23
• Schema application: validation/contacts.ts:89

Output Format Requirements

For Workflow Analysis

Copy## [Feature] Workflow Analysis

### Entry Points (ALL of them)
1. [Entry 1] - file:line - How it's triggered
2. [Entry 2] - file:line - How it's triggered
3. [Entry 3] - file:line - How it's triggered

### Data Flow (for each entry point)
Flow A: [Entry 1]
┌─────────────┐   ┌─────────────┐   ┌─────────────┐
│ Component   │ → │   Hook      │ → │  Provider   │
│ file:line   │   │ file:line   │   │ file:line   │
└─────────────┘   └─────────────┘   └─────────────┘

### Validation Points
| Schema | Location | Applied At | Why |
|--------|----------|------------|-----|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

### Key Architectural Decisions
1. [Decision] - WHY this approach was chosen
2. [Decision] - WHY this pattern was used

### Summary Table
| Question | Answer | Location |
|----------|--------|----------|
| ... | ... | file:line |

Actionable Conclusion

Always end with: "Would you like me to dive deeper into [specific area]?"

MCP Tool Usage (When Available)

When MCP tools are available, use this workflow:

Copy1. search_code("feature keywords") → Find all entry points
2. For EACH result: find_references("component") → Trace consumers
3. go_to_definition("schema") → Jump to definitions
4. Read actual files → Understand implementation
5. Document ALL paths with file:line references

MCP + Thoroughness Combo

CopyMCP Tool Called → This Skill Activates → Thoroughness Enforced
     ↓                  ↓                    ↓
search_code()    →  Reminds:     → "Find ALL entry points"
go_to_definition →  Reminds:     → "Show consumption, not just definition"
find_references  →  Reminds:     → "Trace complete flow"

Quality Checklist

Before completing analysis, verify:

• Found ALL entry points (not just first one)
• Traced complete data flow for each path
• Explained WHY patterns were chosen
• Showed consumption locations, not just definitions
• Included file:line references throughout
• Offered continuation/deeper dive

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

❌ Stopping at First Discovery

Copy"The feature is implemented in ComponentX.tsx"

Always ask: "Are there OTHER places that trigger this?"

❌ Definition Without Consumption

Copy"closeOpportunitySchema is defined at line 413"

Always show: "...and consumed by A (line X) and B (line Y)"

❌ What Without Why

Copy"Uses pessimistic mutation mode"

Always explain: "Uses pessimistic mode because [reason]"

❌ Single Flow Path

Copy"User clicks button → API call → Database"

Always check: "Are there other UI triggers? Events? Scheduled tasks?"

Integration with Other Skills

This skill works with:

• enforcing-principles: Architectural patterns to look for
• data-integrity-guards: Validation layer tracing
• root-cause-tracing: When debugging, trace comprehensively

Examples

Good: Comprehensive Analysis

Copy## Opportunity Close Workflow Analysis

### Entry Points (3 found)
1. Kanban Card Dropdown → OpportunityCardActions.tsx:47-50
2. Kanban Drag-Drop → OpportunityListContent.tsx:388-399
3. SlideOver Edit Form → OpportunitySlideOverDetailsTab.tsx:149-167

### Data Flow
All 3 paths converge at CloseOpportunityModal, which:
- Validates via closeOpportunitySchema (onBlur mode for performance)
- Calls useUpdate → unifiedDataProvider → OpportunitiesService
- Updates stage + win/loss reason atomically

### Why onBlur Mode?
Form uses mode: "onBlur" instead of "onChange" to prevent
re-render storms during reason selection.

Bad: Incomplete Analysis

Copy## Opportunity Close Workflow

The opportunity is closed via drag-drop on the Kanban board.
Uses CloseOpportunityModal for reason capture.

(Missing: Other entry points, consumption tracking, architectural reasoning)