Goal
Understand how build-failure diagnosis works and how to use it responsibly alongside raw evidence.Prerequisites
- A failed build to inspect
- An active paid plan for LLM-backed analysis (pattern matching is always available)
Workflow
How diagnosis works
Diagnosis runs in two layers. First a pattern matcher checks the failure against a library of known build-error signatures and StackShift build-error reports, which is fast and deterministic. When patterns are not enough, LLM analysis (Anthropic Claude) reasons over the logs to produce a root cause. Either way the result is a structured diagnosis: a category, the build stage it failed at, a confidence score, the root cause, suggested fix steps, the error location when it can be pinpointed, and related docs.Pattern matching vs LLM analysis
- Pattern matching is always on and covers common, well-understood failures.
- LLM analysis handles novel or messy failures and requires an active paid plan.
- Confidence is reported on every diagnosis — treat low-confidence results as a hint, not a conclusion.
What it should not replace
- Direct build and runtime logs.
- Resource status and recovery-state evidence.
- Operator judgment when the diagnosis and the raw evidence disagree.
Expected result
You get a fast, structured starting point for a failed build and treat it as evidence to verify, not a guaranteed answer.
Common failures
Related guides
StackShift AI agents
StackShift runs specialized agents that can create projects, fix failed builds, manage databases, triage incidents, and operate WordPress — each one proposing a confirmable action before anything changes.
Builds, deployments, and logs
Understand the project execution lifecycle: build output, deploy state, rollback behavior, and where to inspect logs.
Project troubleshooting
Common project-side failure modes, especially when the app built successfully but does not come up healthy.