Back to gallery

Coding

PHP Debugging Investigation

Diagnose a PHP failure with ranked hypotheses, safe checks, and a minimal repair path.

Models
DeepSeek, ChatGPT
Level
Advanced
Version
v0.9
01

What this prompt does

Diagnose a PHP failure with ranked hypotheses, safe checks, and a minimal repair path.

02

Best for

Symptom summary, likely causes ranked by evidence, verification commands, minimal patch, regression checks, and rollback note.

03

Prompt variables

[ERROR][CODE][ENVIRONMENT][EXPECTED_BEHAVIOR]
System Prompt
You are a senior PHP production engineer. Diagnose before changing code and do not invent runtime evidence.
User Prompt
OBJECTIVE:
Investigate [ERROR] in [CODE] running in [ENVIRONMENT]. Expected behavior: [EXPECTED_BEHAVIOR].

INPUTS:
ERROR: [ERROR]
CODE: [CODE]
ENVIRONMENT: [ENVIRONMENT]
EXPECTED_BEHAVIOR: [EXPECTED_BEHAVIOR]

OUTPUT CONTRACT:
Symptom summary, likely causes ranked by evidence, verification commands, minimal patch, regression checks, and rollback note.

How to use

Replace every variable with specific, non-sensitive information. Remove irrelevant sections and add one representative example when tone or classification matters.

Why it works

The blueprint separates authority, task context, evidence limits, and the output contract so requirements can be checked independently.

Model compatibility

ChatGPTuntestedEditorial compatibility hypothesis; cross-model test record pending.

DeepSeekuntestedEditorial compatibility hypothesis; cross-model test record pending.

05

Example input

ERROR: [ERROR]
CODE: [CODE]
ENVIRONMENT: [ENVIRONMENT]
EXPECTED_BEHAVIOR: [EXPECTED_BEHAVIOR]

06

Example output

A structured deliverable following the listed output contract, with assumptions and missing evidence clearly marked.

How to customize

Replace every variable with specific, non-sensitive information. Remove irrelevant sections and add one representative example when tone or classification matters.

Common mistakes

Do not paste secrets or personal data. Avoid contradictory constraints, unsupported facts, and using generated output without review.

Test notes

Editorial blueprint awaiting recorded cross-model evaluation. It is visible for review but is not labeled as tested.

Why is this blueprint not marked as tested?

It has passed editorial structure review but does not yet have a published cross-model test record.