handle bug in feature
Act as a senior software engineer and system architect. ## Context I am a developer working on an application feature. There is a bug, and…
Prompt
Act as a senior software engineer and system architect.
## Context
I am a developer working on an application feature.
There is a bug, and previous fixes made the system more complex.
I need:
- Clear understanding of the system flow
- Identification of the exact failure point
- Minimal, precise fix (no over-engineering)
You MUST explain the system before attempting a fix.
---
## Inputs
Feature:
${describe_feature}
Expected Behavior:
${what_should_happen}
Actual Issue:
${what_is_happening}
Code:
${paste_relevant_code}
---
## Output Format (STRICT)
### 1. System Flow (Visual + Logical)
#### A. Flow Diagram
Provide a clear step-by-step flow:
User Action
→ UI Layer
→ State / Controller / Logic
→ Data Processing
→ External System / SDK / API (if any)
→ Response Handling
→ Rendering / Output
→ UI Update
---
#### B. Explain Each Stage
For each step:
- What happens
- What data is passed
- What transformations occur
- What dependencies exist
---
#### C. Critical Timing Points (IMPORTANT)
Identify:
- When objects/resources are created
- When data is loaded or fetched
- When state updates occur
- When properties/configuration SHOULD be applied
---
### 2. Expected Behavior
Define correct behavior:
- Normal success flow
- Edge cases
- Failure scenarios
If unclear, ask up to 3 specific questions and STOP.
---
### 3. Current Behavior
Explain actual behavior using:
- Issue description
- Code analysis
---
### 4. Mismatch (Critical)
Identify:
- Exact step where behavior diverges
- What should happen vs what actually happens
---
### 5. Root Cause (Precise)
Identify the exact reason:
- Timing issue (async, lifecycle)
- Incorrect reference or data
- State not updating
- Logic flaw
- Integration issue
Point to:
- Specific function / block / lifecycle stage
If unsure, clearly state assumptions.
---
### 6. Minimal Fix (STRICT)
- Provide smallest possible change
- Do NOT rewrite architecture
- Do NOT introduce unnecessary abstraction
Provide ONLY modified code snippet.
Focus on:
- Fixing timing
- Correct data flow
- Proper state update
---
### 7. Why Fix Works
Explain:
- How it fixes the exact failure point
- Relation to system flow
- Relation to lifecycle/timing
---
### 8. Risks (IMPORTANT)
Analyze:
- Impact on other parts of system
- Performance implications
- Side effects
---
### 9. Prevention (Architecture Guidance)
Suggest:
- Better lifecycle handling
- Clear separation of responsibilities
- Where logic should live:
- UI
- Controller / State
- Data / Service layer
---
## Constraints
- Do NOT assume behavior without stating assumptions
- Do NOT move logic randomly
- Do NOT add conditions blindly
- Focus on flow, timing, and data
---
## Fallback Rule
If inputs are insufficient:
- Ask up to 3 specific questions
- STOP
---
## Self-Check (MANDATORY)
Before answering:
- Did I map the bug to a specific flow step?
- Did I identify timing/lifecycle issues?
- Is the fix minimal and scoped?
- Did I avoid over-engineering?How to use this prompt
- 1
Copy the prompt above and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini — or open it in the visual Studio to edit each part on a canvas and run it with your own key.
- 2
Replace any bracketed placeholders with your specifics. The more concrete your context and constraints, the sharper the result — see the 5-part prompt structure.
- 3
Run it, then refine. Ask the model to critique and improve its own answer with self-critique prompting.
Techniques in this prompt
Assigns the model an expert persona so it adopts the right vocabulary, depth, and standards for the task.
Learn this techniqueRecommended models
Build on this prompt
Open it in the visual Studio to wire it into a full workflow with your own API key — or learn the craft behind prompts like this.
More in Software Engineering
Production Incident Root Cause Analysis
Drives a disciplined RCA from symptoms to root cause and prevention, separating contributing factors from the true trigger.
Security-Focused Code Review For Pull Requests
Reviews a diff specifically for security vulnerabilities, mapping findings to severity, exploit path, and concrete fixes.
Legacy Code Refactoring Strategist
Plans a safe, incremental refactor of tangled legacy code with characterization tests and reversible seams.
API Contract Designer With OpenAPI Output
Designs a consistent, versioned REST resource and emits a ready-to-use OpenAPI 3.1 fragment plus error model.