Validation-first fixes
A diff is not enough until the issue is reproduced and checked
FixBugs treats validation as part of the product, not a cleanup step. The workflow aims to connect the bug, the hypothesis, the proposed change, and the verification output before asking a human to merge.
Core insight
A generated patch can look plausible and still be wrong. Validation-first means the analysis and verification have to survive review before the patch becomes a merge candidate.
Validation path
| Step | Question answered | Reviewer signal |
|---|---|---|
| Reproduce | Can the workflow show the failure mode clearly enough? | Failing test, trace, log pattern, or documented reproduction path. |
| Plan | Does the proposed change target the selected hypothesis? | Affected files, rationale, and scoped task list. |
| Generate diff | Is the implementation reviewable and limited to the intended fix? | Hunk-level diff and explanation. |
| Validate | Does the fix resolve the reproduced issue without obvious regression? | Passing reproduction, test output, or verification note. |
| Escalate uncertainty | Is the context too thin to claim a fix? | A clear note asking for review or more context. |
Product screenshots
When context is thin
A validation-first workflow should not pretend every bug can be solved automatically. If the input is incomplete, the environment cannot reproduce the issue, or the context points to multiple plausible causes, FixBugs should surface the uncertainty.
That is still useful. A clear no-fix result with ranked hypotheses and cited context is better than a confident patch that solves the wrong problem.
Continue reading
Ready to evaluate FixBugs?
Start with the workflow surface your team already uses, then use this architecture resource for the technical review.