TryPromptFlow

Sample Diagnostic Report

What a complete TryPromptFlow diagnostic package looks like — shown as a labeled illustrative example.

This page shows the structure and content of a TryPromptFlow diagnostic output. The scenario, findings, and corrected artifacts below are entirely fictional and created to illustrate what users receive. This is not a real customer result. The actual content of your diagnostic will reflect your specific workflow, prompt, or operating system.

All data below is fictional. Illustrative example — not a customer result.
Run your own diagnostic → How the diagnosis works →

About This Sample

Fictional scenario: Order Status Notification Workflow — a process in which customers are notified of order status changes by an AI-assisted system that updates a CRM, sends email notifications, and escalates failed deliveries to an operations team.

Product used in this scenario: Workflow Doctor (for human-facing and AI-assisted workflows).

1. Executive Report

Executive Report Illustrative example

Readiness verdict: REVIEW — The workflow contains three high-severity gaps that prevent safe autonomous operation. Two medium-severity gaps should be addressed before scaling to higher order volumes. No critical blockers prevent manual operation with existing human oversight.

Top findings:

  • No defined owner for failed delivery notifications — they accumulate in a queue with no escalation trigger
  • Notification retry is unbounded — a permanent delivery failure will retry indefinitely
  • CRM update and notification send are not atomic — a partial failure creates a notified customer with no CRM record
  • No duplicate detection — a resubmitted order status event sends a second notification
  • Acceptance criteria are defined for the happy path only — no criteria for failed, pending, or exception states

Confidence note: This finding is based on the submitted workflow description. It does not account for implementation details, system constraints, or organizational context not provided in the submission. Human review is required before acting on these findings.

2. Findings Table

Findings Table Illustrative example
# Finding Severity Recommended fix
F-01 No escalation owner for failed delivery queue High Name a specific role as the escalation owner; define the trigger condition and response time
F-02 Unbounded notification retry High Add a retry limit (e.g. 3 attempts); define the escalation action when the limit is reached
F-03 Non-atomic CRM update and notification send High Sequence CRM update before notification send; only send if update confirms success
F-04 No duplicate-event detection Medium Add idempotency key to each order status event; deduplicate before processing
F-05 Acceptance criteria for exception states missing Medium Add explicit acceptance criteria for failed, pending, and partial delivery states
F-06 No monitoring for notification delivery rate Low Add a delivery-rate metric and alert threshold to the operations dashboard

3. Corrected Workflow (Excerpt)

Corrected Workflow — Step 3 (Before and After) Illustrative example

Before (submitted):

3. Send notification email to customer when order status changes.

After (corrected):

3. On order status change event: a. Check for duplicate: if this event ID was processed in the last 24 hours, skip and log. b. Update CRM record with new status. If update fails, log error and escalate to Operations queue — do not proceed to notification. c. Send notification email to customer. Retry up to 3 times on transient failure. d. If all retries fail, add to failed-notification queue and alert the Notification Owner role. e. Record delivery status in the CRM order record. Acceptance: CRM shows updated status AND customer receives notification OR failed-notification queue entry exists with alert sent.

4. Risk Register (Excerpt)

Risk Register Illustrative example
Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation
Customer receives duplicate notification Medium Customer confusion, support volume Idempotency key on each event (F-04)
Failed delivery silently accumulates High Customer SLA breach, no visibility Named escalation owner + alert (F-01)
CRM and notification state diverge Medium Incorrect customer record, support escalation Sequence and confirm CRM update first (F-03)

5. Ownership Matrix / RACI (Excerpt)

RACI — Notification Failure Handling Illustrative example
Activity Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed
Monitor notification queue Operations Operations Lead Engineering Customer Success
Escalate failed deliveries Operations Operations Lead Customer Success
Resolve delivery failure Engineering Engineering Lead Operations Customer Success

6. Implementation Roadmap (Excerpt)

Phased Implementation Roadmap Illustrative example

Phase 1 — Critical fixes (address before scaling):

  • F-03: Sequence CRM update before notification; confirm success before proceeding
  • F-02: Add retry limit with defined escalation action
  • F-01: Name escalation owner; define trigger and SLA

Phase 2 — Hardening (address within 30 days):

  • F-04: Add idempotency key and duplicate-event detection
  • F-05: Add acceptance criteria for exception states

Phase 3 — Observability (address within 60 days):

  • F-06: Add delivery-rate metric and alert threshold

7. KPI / Metrics Framework (Excerpt)

KPI Framework Illustrative example
Metric Measures Alert threshold
Notification delivery rate % of triggered notifications successfully delivered Below 98% in any 1-hour window
Failed-delivery queue depth Number of unresolved failed-delivery items Above 10 unresolved items
CRM-notification divergence rate % of orders where CRM status and notification status disagree Above 0.5%
Escalation response time Time from alert to Operations team acknowledgement Above 30 minutes

Threshold values are illustrative and should be calibrated to your actual operational volume and SLA commitments.

Run your own diagnostic → Workflow Doctor →

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this a real customer report?

No. The scenario, findings, and all data on this page are entirely fictional and created to show the structure of a TryPromptFlow diagnostic output. It does not represent any real customer, workflow, or result.

Which product produces this kind of output?

The sample above is structured around Workflow Doctor. Agentic Workflow Doctor and Workflow OS Doctor produce similar artifact sets but focus on different diagnostic criteria — pre-launch risk for agent workflows, and cross-functional operating system gaps, respectively.

How quickly does a real diagnostic complete?

Most TryPromptFlow diagnostics complete in under 10 minutes. The time depends on the length and complexity of the submitted workflow or instruction set.

Do I need to format my workflow in a specific way?

No. Submit your workflow, SOP, prompt, or agent instructions in whatever format you have — plain text, a numbered list, a document excerpt. TryPromptFlow works from the structure of what you submit, not from a required template.