Fix Undefined Function Errors AI Prompt
Your build passes, then a page loads and everything crashes. “Undefined function.” It’s the kind of error that feels simple until you realize you’ve got dozens (or hundreds) of call sites across multiple files, mixed naming styles, and no clear source of truth.
This undefined function errors AI prompt is built for software engineers who are debugging multi-file projects under time pressure, technical leads who need an evidence-based audit they can hand to a teammate, and agency developers juggling client repos where naming drift accumulates over time. The output is a line-specific mismatch report that maps each function invocation to the closest matching definition (or confirms none exists), plus exact, minimal fixes you can apply without “guessing what you meant.”
What Does This AI Prompt Do and When to Use It?
| What This Prompt Does | When to Use This Prompt | What You’ll Get |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
The Full AI Prompt: Undefined Function Name Alignment Audit
Fill in the fields below to personalize this prompt for your needs.
| Variable | What to Enter | Customise the prompt |
|---|---|---|
[INDUSTRY] |
Specify the industry or domain the codebase belongs to, such as finance, healthcare, or e-commerce. For example: "Financial technology (FinTech), focusing on payment processing and fraud detection."
|
|
[CONTEXT] |
Provide a brief overview of the codebase, including its purpose, size, and any relevant details about its structure or technologies used. For example: "A microservices-based web application with 15 services written in Python and Node.js, primarily handling user authentication and data analytics."
|
|
[CHALLENGE] |
Describe the specific problem or issue you are facing in the codebase related to function name mismatches. For example: "Frequent 'function not found' errors due to inconsistent naming conventions between modules, such as camelCase vs snake_case."
|
Pro Tips for Better AI Prompt Results
- Paste the error plus the surrounding call site. Don’t only paste the stack trace line. Include 10–30 lines around the failing invocation so the prompt can quote a unique snippet if line numbers are missing. Follow-up you can use: “If line numbers aren’t available, reference each finding by the smallest unique snippet from the call site.”
- Include all candidate definitions in one pass. The prompt is designed to match invocations to definitions, so give it every file that might define the function (utilities, helpers, shared libs). If the repo is big, narrow it intentionally: “Here are the only files that contain ‘function’ declarations and exports for this module; audit these first.”
- Force an exact-character diff for each mismatch. This is where the value is, frankly. Ask for explicit deltas like “missing underscore after ‘get’” or “capital S in call site but lowercase s in definition.” A simple follow-up prompt: “For each mismatch, show the call name and definition name with the differing characters highlighted using [brackets].”
- Iterate by mismatch family, not by file. After the first report, pick the biggest pattern and rerun. For example: “Now focus only on camelCase vs snake_case mismatches and list every impacted call site.” Then: “Make option A conservative (change call sites) and option B conservative (change definitions), and explain the risk of each.”
- Ask it to produce PR-ready edits. Once you trust the mapping, push it to be operational: “For each fix, output the exact before/after line(s) I should change.” If you can share the relevant functions, add: “Keep changes minimal; do not rename anything that already matches a definition exactly.”
Common Questions
Backend Engineers use this to systematically map “undefined function” crashes to the exact call sites that are misnamed, without chasing false leads. Frontend Engineers rely on it when bundling or refactoring introduces subtle case changes that only break in certain environments. Tech Leads use the line-specific report as a review artifact so the team can apply consistent fixes across files. DevOps/Release Engineers find it useful during incident response because it narrows the scope to identifier alignment and produces fast, testable edits.
SaaS companies get value when rapid iteration and frequent deploys lead to naming drift across services or shared libraries, especially during refactors. E-commerce brands benefit when checkout, payments, or discount logic breaks due to small identifier mismatches in sprawling theme or plugin code. Agencies use it across client repositories where conventions vary and “almost the same function name” is a recurring time sink. Fintech and regulated teams like the evidence-driven style because fixes can be justified with exact diffs and location references for audits.
A typical prompt like “Write me a fix for an undefined function error” fails because it: lacks the full set of definitions and call sites to compare, provides no strict character-by-character matching rules, ignores case sensitivity and tiny glyph differences, produces generic advice about imports or scope instead of a concrete name-alignment report, and misses recurring mismatch patterns (like underscores or namespace qualifiers) that cause repeated breakage. This prompt is stronger because it treats the problem as an evidence audit, not a guess. It will only recommend changes that are supported by the code you provide.
Yes. Even though the prompt has no form variables, you customize it by controlling the inputs you paste: the exact error message, the call sites, and the full list of candidate function definitions across files. You can also set the output rules, like “use line numbers when present, otherwise cite a unique snippet,” and “only propose edits that change identifiers, nothing else.” A helpful follow-up instruction is: “First, list every function invocation you see, then list every function definition, then produce a match table and mismatches with exact diffs.”
The biggest mistake is pasting only the error line and not the surrounding code, which removes the location context the audit relies on; instead of “Undefined function get_user()”, provide the whole block where get_user() is called plus the likely utility file. Another common error is omitting one of the definition files, so the prompt reports “no match” when a definition exists elsewhere; a better input is “Here are all files containing ‘function get’ in this module.” People also paste “cleaned up” code that doesn’t match what’s running, so the character-level diffs become meaningless; use the exact deployed version. Finally, mixing multiple unrelated errors in one run muddies the match table; run one failing function family at a time, then merge fixes.
This prompt isn’t ideal when the function truly exists but is unavailable due to imports, module visibility, load order, or dependency wiring, because it intentionally avoids that broader investigation unless the name string differs. It’s also not the best fit for teams looking for a full refactor plan or style-guide rewrite; it will stay narrowly focused on identifier alignment. If your situation is “the name is correct but runtime can’t see it,” start with a tooling or module-resolution checklist instead, then come back to this prompt once you’ve confirmed it’s a naming problem.
Undefined function errors waste time because they look obvious until you’re buried in nearly-identical names. Run this prompt, get an evidence-first mismatch map, and apply fixes you can defend in code review.
Need Help Setting This Up?
Our automation experts can build and customize this workflow for your specific needs. Free 15-minute consultation—no commitment required.
