Engineering

Error Analysis Prompt

An exception is a symptom, not a diagnosis: trace from the throw site back to the root trigger, with the runtime checklist on the table.

Open in Debugging Prompt Generator

Overview

The exception message tells you where it hurt — not why. This setup runs the runtime error strategy on a production-adjacent NullReferenceException: locate the exact failure point and the state at that moment, trace the execution path backward from the throw to the trigger, and distinguish the proximate cause (what threw) from the root trigger (what made it throw) — with the runtime checklist covering null paths, dependency failures, invalid state, configuration differences, environment drift, and unchecked input contracts.

How to use this resource

Paste the exception raw

Message, stack, and the log lines around it — the detector recognizes them and the contract carries them verbatim.
Demand the trigger, not the site

Line 142 threw; the investigation asks what reached line 142 in that state.
Validate before patching

A null check at the throw site is a symptom fix — the contract labels it as a temporary mitigation unless the trigger is addressed.

Why This Works

Throw-site vs cause-site framing redirects effort to where the bug actually is
The runtime checklist covers the unglamorous causes (config, drift) that stack traces hide
Symptom-fix labeling stops null checks from masquerading as repairs

Best for

Exceptions that "can't happen" but did
Errors that appear in one environment and not another
Developers handed a stack trace and a deadline

Not for

Errors with no exception — wrong results are the functional-bug strategy
AI output format errors — that's the AI Output Validator

Use cases

Working a NullReferenceException back to its real cause
Separating what threw from what made it throw
Checking environment drift before blaming the code

FAQ

What do I paste into the error analysis prompt?

Paste the exception raw — the message, the full stack trace, and the log lines around it — plus what you already know: the symptoms, the reproduction steps, and the environment it happened in. The prompt carries the stack trace verbatim and flags that a staging-versus-production difference is itself a suspect, so include the environment even when it seems irrelevant.

What does the error analysis prompt produce?

It runs a ten-stage investigation ending in the most likely root cause plus at least two alternatives, each with the evidence for and against it and a step that would confirm or eliminate it. Every statement is labeled FACT, ASSUMPTION, or HYPOTHESIS, and any fix that only patches the throw site is labeled a temporary mitigation rather than a real repair.

Does the error analysis prompt fix the bug for me?

No — it diagnoses and proposes a fix with a way to verify it, but you implement and validate it in your own environment. It separates the proximate cause (what threw) from the root trigger (what made it throw), so the point is a validated diagnosis, not an unexplained patch. The gold standard it aims for is a reproduction that toggles the failure on and off.

Customize This Resource

Opens this setup in Debugging Prompt Generator. Generate to get the full investigation contract — then adjust the problem type, mode, and environment.

Open in Debugging Prompt Generator

Prompt Template

Copy it as-is, or use Open in Debugging Prompt Generator to load it pre-filled and customize it with your own context.

DEBUGGING OBJECTIVE
Analyze the NullReferenceException thrown in checkout since this morning.
Problem type: runtime error — an exception, crash, or stack trace marks the failure.
Determine what is actually happening. Do not jump directly to a solution before identifying the most likely root cause.

SYSTEM CONTEXT
Environment: staging — verify parity with production configuration; any difference from production is itself a suspect.
Reported severity: High.
Investigation strategy for this problem type:
- Locate the exact failure point: the line, the call, and the state at the moment of failure.
- Trace the execution path backward from the failure to its trigger — the throw site is rarely the cause site.
- Distinguish the proximate cause (what threw) from the root trigger (what made it throw).

KNOWN FACTS
Symptoms: Checkout fails with HTTP 500 for some users.
Expected behavior: Checkout completes and returns the confirmation page.
Actual behavior: HTTP 500; exception thrown in OrderProcessor.CalculateShipping.
Reproduction steps:
- Add an item with no shipping dimensions to the cart
- Proceed to checkout
Logs / errors:
```
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
   at OrderProcessor.CalculateShipping(Order order) in OrderProcessor.cs:line 142
   at OrderProcessor.Process(Order order) in OrderProcessor.cs:line 87
   at CheckoutController.Post(CheckoutRequest req)
```

INVESTIGATION FRAMEWORK
Structure the investigation in exactly these stages:
1. SYMPTOMS — restate the observable symptoms, separating observations from interpretations.
2. KNOWN FACTS — list what is directly evidenced, each fact with its source.
3. REPRODUCTION STEPS — verify the provided steps reproduce the problem; reduce them to the minimal failing case.
4. POSSIBLE CAUSES — candidate causes, drawn from the checklist below and from the evidence.
5. ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS — the most likely cause and the alternatives, per the root cause rules.
6. EVIDENCE REVIEW — which evidence is solid, which is weak, which is missing, and what contradicts what.
7. MISSING INFORMATION — what you need that you do not have. Ask for it; do not guess it.
8. VALIDATION PLAN — the tests or observations that will confirm or eliminate the leading cause.
9. FIX RECOMMENDATION — per the fix requirements below.
10. POST-FIX VERIFICATION — per the verification requirements below.

DEBUGGING CHECKLIST
Candidate causes to check for this problem type:
1. Null/undefined references on the failure path
2. Dependency failures (network, database, filesystem) surfacing as exceptions
3. Invalid state reached through an unexpected order of operations
4. Configuration differences from the environment where it works
5. Environment drift: versions, locales, time zones, OS differences
6. Input that violates an implicit contract the code never checks

ROOT CAUSE RULES
- Identify the MOST LIKELY root cause — and at least two ALTERNATIVE causes.
- For each candidate cause: list the evidence supporting it AND the evidence contradicting it.
- Define a validation step for each candidate: what observation would confirm or eliminate it.
- The symptom site and the cause site may be different places — finding where it hurts is not finding why.

EVIDENCE RULES
Label every statement as exactly one of:
- FACT: directly observed. Example: "The application returned HTTP 500."
- ASSUMPTION: believed without direct evidence. Example: "The database is probably down." Assumptions must be verified or discarded — never silently promoted to facts.
- HYPOTHESIS: a testable causal claim. Example: "A failed database connection may be causing the 500 response." Every hypothesis comes with its test.
- Prefer evidence over inference; where evidence is missing, label the assumption explicitly.
- Carry at least two hypotheses until evidence separates them.

VALIDATION REQUIREMENTS
- Before proposing any fix, state how the diagnosis was validated — or what validation is still pending.
- The gold standard: a reproduction that turns the failure on and off by toggling the suspected cause.
- If the root cause cannot be validated with the available information, say so and list what is needed.

FIX REQUIREMENTS
- Any fix proposal must include: the likely cause, the supporting evidence, the proposed change, and how to verify it worked.
- Frame it as "here is why this is likely the fix" — never an unexplained patch.
- Prefer the smallest fix that addresses the root cause; label symptom-only fixes as temporary mitigations.

POST-FIX VERIFICATION
- Define what to observe after the fix: the original reproduction passing, error rates at baseline, the affected metric recovered.
- Check for regressions in the paths the fix touched.
- State how long to observe before declaring the problem resolved — intermittent problems need longer windows.

More resources from Debugging Prompt Generator

Resource

Debugging Prompt — the Investigation Contract

"Fix this error" gets guesses. The investigation contract gets a ten-stage diagnosis: facts separated from assumptions, alternatives weighed, fixes justified.

Prompt Engineering

Resource

Debug Performance Problems

Measure before reasoning: find WHERE the time goes, separate latency from memory from throughput, and think at production scale.

Engineering

Resource

Debug a Production Incident

Stabilize, then diagnose: impact first, rollback options before intervention, timeline from the deploy history — forensic discipline under fire.

Operations

Resources that pair well

Resource

Code Review Prompt — the Review Contract

"Review this code" gets shallow comments. The review contract gets findings with severities, a checklist, and a verdict.

Prompt Engineering

Resource

Playwright Test Prompt

getByRole over CSS chains, auto-wait over sleep, web-first assertions — Playwright tests written the way Playwright wants.

Engineering

Resource

Refactor Prompt — the Behavior Preservation Contract

"Refactor this code" invites silent behavior changes. The refactoring contract preserves business rules, outputs, and side effects — and flags uncertainty instead of deciding it.

Prompt Engineering

Related tools

Tool

Debugging Prompt Generator

Build debugging prompts from symptoms, environment, and reproduction steps — root cause first, fix second.

Coding Workflows

Guides for this resource

Guide

How to Make AI Separate Facts, Assumptions, and Recommendations

Ask AI to analyze something and it hands back one smooth paragraph where you can't tell what you told it from what it assumed from what it's recommending. Here's how to make it split the answer into visible layers — facts, assumptions, inferences, recommendations, and what still needs checking.

Prompt Engineering

Guide

How to Analyze a Stack Trace With AI Without Trusting the Top Line

A stack trace is precise about where execution stopped and nearly silent about why it started going wrong. Here is how to analyze a stack trace with AI: read the exception chain inside out, find the frames you own, and separate what the trace proves from what it merely suggests.

Software Development with AI

Tip: Save time by exploring related resources and tools that integrate with this resource.