Ask the assistant what the root cause is, what else could be affected, what it did not change, and how to test the fix. Use the answers to guide your own checks. A confident explanation is not evidence, because the same model that wrote the fix wrote the explanation.
Why ask at all
Interrogating a suggestion is cheap, and it often exposes gaps: an unstated assumption, a missed code path, a package that may not exist. Think of it as a structured walkthrough with a junior colleague who answers fast and sounds sure.
The caution is equally important. OWASP's guidance on secure coding with AI notes that a passing suite generated by the same agent that produced the code provides no independent assurance. The same logic applies to explanations.
Eight questions
- What is the root cause, in one sentence? If the answer describes the symptom, the fix may be shallow.
- Which files and functions did you change, and why each? Compare the answer with the actual diff. Differences are a flag.
- What did you deliberately leave unchanged? This surfaces scoped out edge cases.
- Where else in this repository does the same pattern appear? Then verify with a code search yourself.
- What input would still break this? Ask for a hostile example, then run it.
- How would I write a test that fails before this change and passes after? Review the test closely. Do not let the assistant also change existing tests.
- What behavior changes for existing users? Look for compatibility notes, and compare with release notes if a dependency changed.
- How do I roll this back? If the answer is vague, the change may be bigger than it looks.
How to read the answers
| Answer pattern | What to do |
|---|---|
| Specific, matches the diff | Good. Verify one claim by hand |
| Specific, does not match the diff | Stop. Find out which is wrong |
| Vague or hedged | Narrow the task and ask again |
| Cites a version or advisory | Check it on the source, because assistants can state wrong versions confidently |
| Cites a package you do not know | Check that it exists before anything else |
OWASP's guidance warns that assistants may suggest versions with known CVEs and package names that do not exist, so treat any specific claim as unconfirmed until you check it.
Keep the transcript
Save the questions and answers with the pull request, or summarize them in the description. Later, when someone asks why a change was made, the reasoning is on record. It also helps you compare how often the assistant's explanation matched reality, which feeds a decision log. See keeping a decision log for AI fix suggestions.
What not to ask
Do not paste secrets, customer data or private keys into an assistant to help it understand the bug. OWASP notes that AI tools can send broad project context to the model provider, so check your tool's data handling first.
Safeguard's fix pull requests, which are off by default, come with the finding that triggered them. Even so, the questions above are a good habit for any change.
Quick check
If the assistant explains its fix well, can I skip testing?
No. A fluent explanation shows the assistant can describe the change, not that the change works. Run a reproduction and a rescan.
Sources
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
