When you paste an error into an AI agent, you're handing it your conclusion

Description and use

Copying only a stack trace into an AI agent yields a symptom fix, not a root‑cause solution. By supplying the exact request, surrounding code, and a reproducible trigger, the agent can identify contract drift and provide a reliable fix.

Problem

Relying solely on a stack trace when asking an AI agent to fix a bug leads the agent to patch the symptom rather than the root cause, causing incomplete fixes and repeated failures.

Outcome

Providing comprehensive evidence (exact input, surrounding code, reproducible trigger) enables AI agents to identify contract drift and root causes, leading to reliable fixes that prevent repeated production failures.

Workflow

• 1. Capture the exact input that triggered the failure (request line, headers, body).
• 2. Provide the surrounding code path, not just the failing line, including the calling functions and branch conditions.
• 3. Offer a reproducible way to trigger the error locally (e.g., a test or script).
• 4. Paste the stack trace along with the above evidence into the AI agent.
• 5. Review the agent’s proposed patch and ask, "What input would still break this?" to uncover overlooked cases.
• 6. Apply the patch only after confirming it addresses the root cause and all relevant inputs.

Evidence

What you pasted wasn't the bug. It was your conclusion about which part of the bug mattered.

Source

I used to paste just the trace. Now I paste three things, in order: the exact input that triggered the failure, the surrounding code path, and a reproducible way to trigger it locally.

Source

After the agent proposes a patch, before I apply it, I ask one question back: "what input would still break this?"

Source