Mason Bachmann

I built an autonomous error-fixing agent as a solo founder — launching tomorrow

I'm Mason, and I built BugStack as an internal tool for my other startup, FuelScout. I was a solo founder running a product with real users, and production errors kept hitting while I was away. By the time I caught them, users had already churned.

The fix was almost always a few lines of code. So I asked myself, if I can read a stack trace, pull the relevant files, and write a fix, why can't an AI agent do the same thing end to end?

That question turned into a 3-week build sprint. BugStack now captures production errors, pulls context from your GitHub repo, generates a minimal AI fix, validates it, runs your CI, and auto-deploys, all without waking you up.

A few things I learned building it:

→ Context is everything. Sending just the error to an LLM gives you garbage. BugStack fetches the erroring file, its imports (2 levels deep), type definitions, and test files before generating anything. That's what makes the fixes actually work.

→ Confidence gating is non-negotiable. Not every AI fix should ship automatically. BugStack rates every fix and only auto-merges when confidence is high AND CI passes. Everything else becomes a PR for human review.

→ Code style matters more than you think. If the fix uses different indentation or quote style than the rest of the codebase, developers reject it on sight — even if it's correct. BugStack detects and matches your exact conventions.

Launching on Product Hunt tomorrow. If you're curious, follow the page so you get notified, and I'd genuinely love to hear: would you trust an AI agent to deploy fixes to your production app? What would it take to earn that trust?

6 views

Add a comment

Replies

Best
Mason Bachmann
Hey Gianmarco! Thank you for the thoughtful comment. You are bang on, I think about the confidence gate a lot. As the product matures I would love to introduce a stronger feedback loop to enhance the ML aspect of the confidence gate. Right now the confidence gate is determined by Claude and my own parameters I’ve set. To answer your question: it improves per repo but only when failures happen. It gathers the logs from failed tests and adds it to the context for that repo. Over time I hope to make this a bigger differentiator! Would love to discuss further and share more insights with you as you approach launching your Aitinerary! Looking forward to your launch 🤝