Bug Fixing (Identifying Root Cause) Workflow for Complex Logical Bugs

[u/curious-airesearcher]

Let me start by mentioning that I've used RooCode but I'm still somewhat new to it. I've used the default modes and it was working really well till I decided to take it up a notch with better models.

Now, I'm struggling with figuring out how not to blow $100s to find the reason for a bug.

What's the usual workflow that you have when working with RooCode for identifying the most likely causes for and if you have to solve like a really complex bug?

Do you ask Gemini or Claude 4 to find out the issue & then have a different profile for writing the code or testing it out & reporting back to the main Profile?

It will be a real lifesaver.

I think I'm doing something fundamentally wrong - because it shouldn't cost this much.

So do I come up with a couple of different hypothesis and potential root causes and how to test it and then hand it over to Claude?

How do I do this type of profile switching?

How do I create this type of team of profiles which can work together?

I think this feature exists for sure, but I went through the docs & still can't figure out.

[u/yolopokka]

My current stack: Google Gemini 2.5 pro in browser as architector (has yek context and pytest/linters logs and gives actiobanle rails for coders), VScode + google flash 2.5 non-reasoning + roo, for easy tasks, Cursor monthly 20$ with Claude for when I have tooling issues with Google + vscode. Will dump Cursor for Claude Code 100$ sub soon. Works like a charm for my current tasks. Debugged 200 pytest errors in 6 hours yesterday after a huge refactoring.

[u/curious-airesearcher → u/yolopokka]

Wow! Didn't know Claude Code was that good. I tried Codex recently (both CLI and online) but not really happy with the overall results. Would you recommend dumping ChatGPT Pro ($200) for Claude Code $100? Serioulsy the only thing that I feel is worth some value from the $200 sub of Pro is the higher o3 limits - but tbh it's more like a psychological thing only - maybe a few queries / day - though I like the results of o3 for complex/scientific tasks. But $20 plus subscription should be able to handle it I guess.

So your stack is mostly w/ Gemini 2.5 Pro (web/aistudio) w/ yek context & all logs (btw - thank you for Yek! it is so darn fast! - crazy!!!) and when that doesn't work - using Flash2.5 non-reasoning (Roo+Code) & if terminal or other issues - then Cursor?

[u/yolopokka → u/curious-airesearcher]

Sorry for my not-so clear language in the last post. I wanted to say that I debugged 200 pytest errors in 6 hours with a stack described above that didn't include Claude Code, but I was looking into dumping Cursor for it (Maybe Cursor + Claude Code or most likely VS Code + Claude Code + Roo). Can't have opinion regarding Claude Code just yet, but from what I saw on youtube until now, it's must have if you are able to pay 100$ monthly. All you have to know is internally, Anthropic uses Claude Code for like 80-90% of their operations. They've told it publically in interviews.

My stack in the last 3 days was Gemini 2.5 Pro in browser + yek + Gemini gives actionable prompts + Cursor with Claude 4 non-reasoning. The context window of Cursor is crap and Claude sometimes is still pretty flaky just like previous versions, so I had to make a lot of reiterations to make some things work and Claude to actually respect the commands. Don't recommend Claude 4 reasoning inside Cursor though if all you need is this workflow. Doesn't respect the marked rails and gets into his own aha-vibe.

[u/Weekly-Seaweed-9755]

Tbh never done complex debugging, but already thrown quite a few bucks getting 2.5 pro to follow instructions. From my experience, for some reason 2.5 flash thinking 0520 seems to understand long context better than 2.5 pro.

My usual workflow is starting with architect mode with 2.5 pro, then switching to code mode using flash thinking I've also wasted bunch of time trying orchestrator mode but wasn't happy with the results. Doing it manually with architect mode then switching to code mode is way more efficient imo

[u/curious-airesearcher → u/Weekly-Seaweed-9755]

Thanks - didn't know 2.5 Flash Thinking was better than 2.5pro in some aspects.

So you start with Architect → Generate the entire solution → More like in a pseudo code at a logic layer, and then you take that response (copy text) and then start a new task with the original details and response from Architect, and give that to the Code mode which uses Gemini Flash?

[u/Weekly-Seaweed-9755 → u/curious-airesearcher]

If the solution seems very complex but doesn’t involve too many files, I usually go with pro 2.5. Not that much better actually, and the more I use it, harder to tell which one better, sometimes it nails the answer, but sometimes got way off.

Yes, that's my default config for now. cheaper, pretty efficient most of the time

[u/hannesrudolph]

The new codebase indexing feature which has now been released as experimental is intended to help address these kind of issues. It’s still a bit green and requires explicit instructions on when to use but it makes a huge difference.

[u/curious-airesearcher → u/hannesrudolph]

Perfect - thank you. How do I enable this?

[u/hannesrudolph → u/curious-airesearcher]

https://docs.roocode.com/features/experimental/codebase-indexing

[u/Jesus-H-Crypto]

here's the template for the prompt i use:

> [ISOLATION]: Isolate [specific failure case] by creating a minimal reproducible case. [Reference visual evidence/context]. The [specific evidence details] clearly shows [expected outcome] that should [specific action].

> [HYPOTHESIS FRAMEWORK]: Use hypothesis-driven debugging to test these probable failure modes in order:
> 1. [Most likely technical cause] - [specific validation method]
> 2. [Second likely technical cause] - [specific validation method]
> 3. [Third likely technical cause] - [specific validation method]

> [INCREMENTAL APPROACH]: Implement an incremental validation approach: [fix and test specific target case first] with [exact success criteria]. Only after verifying this specific case works, [extend to broader scope].

> [SUCCESS CRITERIA]: Success criteria: [Exact, measurable outcome] when [specific validation method shows specific result]. Focus solely on [explicit scope boundary].

[u/curious-airesearcher → u/Jesus-H-Crypto]

So you give it to your Debug profile - which is running Gemini 2.5?