Something I do to get better outputs from Codex when fixing bugs

I've discovered something subtle.

Previously, I would gather as much information as I could about a bug (eg. What I see, Conditions to reproduce it, other side effects, etc), and let codex try to solve it. It can fix the bugs most of the time, but sometimes it fails completely.

I've noticed that if I add the phrase "do thought experiments", it seems to fix any bug with a 100% success rate. I assume it puts more effort into imagining what state the variables would be in when the bug occurs, instead of just considering the raw code, which seems to be key for 100% success rate.

Just thought I'd share.