Halilcan Soran

Tag: Power Platform

  • SharePoint Lists Are Still the Best Backend for 80 Percent of Power Platform Apps

    SharePoint Lists Are Still the Best Backend for 80 Percent of Power Platform Apps

    SharePoint lists for power platform apps backend architecture decision

    There is a pattern I keep seeing on LinkedIn and in conversations with people at other organisations. A team starts a new Power Platform project, someone labels it ‘enterprise’, and suddenly the backend discussion jumps straight to Dataverse. No one questions it. Licensing gets justified in a spreadsheet, premium seats get budgeted, and six weeks later the solution is a list of 4000 records with a status column and three lookup fields. That is the moment I want to push back. For a big chunk of internal work, SharePoint lists for power platform apps are still the right call, and treating that choice as amateur hour is costing teams real time and money.

    Why SharePoint Lists Keep Getting Dismissed Unfairly

    The dismissal usually comes from two places. First, the word SharePoint carries baggage from the 2013 era that has nothing to do with what Lists actually is in 2026. Second, Dataverse gets sold as ‘the proper enterprise choice’ in every Microsoft deck, so picking anything else feels like admitting you cut corners.

    Neither of those is an engineering argument. They are vibes.

    In practice, a modern SharePoint list gives you a REST and Graph API, column-level validation, versioning, item-level permissions if you really need them, native integration with every Power Platform connector, and a UI that business users can actually open and fix when something looks off. You get Entra ID authentication for free. DLP policies cover it. The audit log flows into the same Purview tenant everything else does. For an internal request tracker, an onboarding checklist, a small approval queue, or a reference table that three flows read from, that is the whole job.

    The Workloads Where SharePoint Is Genuinely the Right Answer

    I am not arguing SharePoint wins everywhere. I am arguing it wins for a specific and very common shape of work.

    If the app is an internal tool, used by under a few hundred people, with a data volume that will never credibly pass 20 or 30 thousand items in any single list, and a schema that fits cleanly into flat records with a handful of choice and lookup fields, you are in SharePoint territory. Registrations, comms sign-offs, small approval workflows, asset inventories, internal request forms, training trackers, audit checklists. This is the bread and butter of Power Platform inside any large organisation.

    Building on a list for that kind of workload is faster in almost every dimension. You spin up the schema in minutes. Makers on your team can read and edit the data directly in the browser without a model-driven app wrapper. Your Power Automate flows use the standard SharePoint connector, which means no premium licence for the thousand people who happen to trigger a flow indirectly. That last point alone saves real budget. I have written before about how licensing shapes architecture choices in enterprise environments, and this is one of the clearest examples.

    The Real Limits You Need to Design Around

    SharePoint lists are not magic. They have hard edges, and you need to know them before you commit.

    The 5000 item view threshold is the one everyone quotes, and it is real, but it is a view and query limit, not a storage limit. A list can hold millions of items. You work around the threshold with indexed columns, filtered views, and delegable queries in Power Apps. If you are careful with your delegation, a list with 50,000 items performs fine for the usage patterns most internal apps actually have.

    Throttling is the other one. The SharePoint connector has its own limits, and if you are running a flow that hammers a list in an Apply to Each loop at full concurrency, you will get throttled. Same story I covered in the throttling post. Drop concurrency, batch your reads, and stop treating the list like a transactional database.

    Where SharePoint genuinely falls over is relational complexity. More than two or three lookups deep and you are building joins in Power Automate, which is painful to maintain. Row-level security beyond basic item permissions gets ugly fast. Calculated columns are limited. And if two users edit the same item in the same second, you can get conflicts the platform does not resolve gracefully. This is also where why Power Automate is still worth learning in 2026 becomes relevant — knowing how to structure flows around list limitations is a skill that pays off repeatedly.

    When to Actually Move to Dataverse

    Dataverse earns its licence cost when the workload has specific characteristics. Genuine relational depth with many-to-many relationships you actually traverse. Role-based security that needs to be enforced at the data layer, not the app layer. Business rules and calculated fields that are part of the data contract. Plugins, server-side logic, or integration with Dynamics. Auditing at the field level for compliance. Transactional guarantees where a failed write must roll back cleanly.

    If your project has three or more of those, Dataverse is the right choice and the licensing conversation is easy to win because the alternative is building those features yourself and maintaining them forever.

    If your project has none of them, and you are about to spend eight weeks justifying premium seats for 400 people so you can store a status column on 4000 records, stop. Build it on a list. Ship it next week. Spend the saved budget on something that actually needs it. And before you wire any intelligence layer into whatever you build, it is worth reading Adding Copilot to Your Power App Is Not the Same as Making It Smarter — the backend choice and the AI layer choice follow the same logic.

    The backend choice is an engineering decision, not a status symbol. I write more about these kinds of trade-offs on my LinkedIn if this is the kind of call you are wrestling with right now.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    When should I use SharePoint lists for Power Platform apps instead of Dataverse?

    SharePoint lists are a strong fit when your app is internal, used by fewer than a few hundred people, and will never exceed tens of thousands of items in a single list. Common examples include approval queues, request forms, training trackers, and asset inventories where a flat schema with a few lookup fields covers everything you need.

    Why does using SharePoint as a Power Platform backend save money on licensing?

    Power Automate flows that connect to SharePoint use the standard connector, which does not require a premium licence. In large organisations where thousands of users might trigger a flow indirectly, avoiding premium connector requirements can add up to significant budget savings compared to a Dataverse-backed solution.

    What are the security and governance features available with SharePoint lists?

    Modern SharePoint lists authenticate through Entra ID and are covered by your organisation’s DLP policies. Audit logs feed into the same Purview tenant as your other Microsoft 365 services, so governance and compliance requirements are met without additional configuration.

    How do I know if Dataverse is actually necessary for my Power Platform project?

    If a solution is genuinely enterprise in scale, involving complex relational data, high record volumes, or advanced role-based security requirements, Dataverse earns its place. However, if the data model is a few flat lists with simple lookups and the user base is a small internal team, reaching for Dataverse by default adds cost and complexity without a clear engineering benefit.

  • If You Are Starting Copilot Studio in 2026 Skip the Chatbot Tutorials

    If You Are Starting Copilot Studio in 2026 Skip the Chatbot Tutorials

    Getting started with Copilot Studio 2026 using generative orchestration instead of topics

    I keep running into people getting started with Copilot Studio in 2026 who spent their first two weeks building a topic tree with trigger phrases and a node-by-node dialog flow. Then they ask me why their agent feels rigid and why every new question breaks something. The answer is not that they built it badly. They learned the wrong paradigm from tutorials written three years ago.

    If you are starting today, skip the chatbot tutorials. Go straight to a generative orchestration agent with a couple of tools and knowledge sources. That is how real agents are being built now.

    Why the 2023 Copilot Studio learning path is actively misleading in 2026

    The classic learning path walks you through creating a topic, adding trigger phrases, building a dialog tree with question nodes, conditions, and variables, then testing it with the exact phrases you wrote. It feels productive because you see progress quickly. It is also teaching you a way of thinking that does not scale past an FAQ bot.

    Microsoft itself has de-emphasised this path. Generative orchestration is the default for new agents. Topics still exist and still have their place, but as guardrails for specific flows that must follow a strict script, not as the primary way to build conversation.

    The problem with learning topics first is unlearning them later. People who start with trigger phrases end up writing dozens of them trying to catch every variation a user might type, then wonder why the agent still misroutes at the edges. Your Copilot Studio Agent Passed Every Test and Still Failed in Production explores exactly this kind of failure. Generative orchestration does not eliminate this, but it changes the shape of the problem entirely.

    The four things that actually matter when you start today

    When someone joins the team and asks where to begin with Copilot Studio, I tell them to focus on four things before anything else.

    Instructions. The system prompt is where most of the agent’s behaviour comes from now. Learning to write clear, specific, scoped instructions is more valuable than learning the node editor. Bad instructions cause instruction drift the moment real data hits the agent.

    Knowledge sources. Connecting a SharePoint site, a Dataverse table, or a public website and understanding how the agent grounds answers in them. This is where the actual information lives. Most agents do not need a dialog tree, they need good grounding.

    Tools. A tool is a Power Automate flow, a connector action, an MCP server, or a prompt. Learning how to design tools so the agent can call them reliably is the real skill. Returning a status of done is not enough. The agent needs structured output it can reason about.

    Orchestration behaviour. Understanding that the LLM picks which tool to call, in what order, and how to handle the result. You are not drawing the flow. You are writing instructions and designing tools so the LLM can draw the flow at runtime. If you are deciding whether Copilot Studio is even the right tool for what you are building, Copilot Studio Is Not Always the Answer is worth reading before you go further.

    A first build that teaches you the right mental model

    Pick a small real scenario. Something like: surface open tickets assigned to the current user and let them add a comment. Not a chatbot. An agent with a job.

    Create a new agent in Copilot Studio with generative orchestration enabled. Skip topics entirely for this first build. Write clear instructions describing what the agent does, what it does not do, and how it should respond when it cannot help.

    Add one knowledge source. A SharePoint site or a Dataverse table works well. Ask it questions against that knowledge and watch how it grounds.

    Add two tools. One Power Automate flow that reads data, one that writes. Make sure both return structured output, not just a success flag. Test what happens when the write fails. If the agent does not know it failed, fix the tool, not the agent.

    That is the entire first build. No trigger phrases. No dialog tree. No variables you manage manually. You will learn more in a week of this than a month of the traditional tutorial path.

    What to learn next once your first agent works

    Once that agent behaves reliably, then learn topics. Use them for the narrow cases where you need a deterministic script. Identity confirmation. Regulated disclosures. Multi-step forms with strict validation. Topics are good at this. They are bad as the primary way to build an agent.

    After topics, learn evaluation. Not just output testing. Behavioural testing. Does the agent handle incomplete questions, mid-conversation intent switching, and edge case inputs the way you expect? Most agentic workflows that feel intelligent in a demo turn out to be just fancy if/then logic in a trench coat when real users hit them. This is the single skill that separates agents that pass a demo from agents that survive production.

    Then learn MCP, custom connectors, and multi-agent orchestration. By that point you will have the mental model to evaluate whether you actually need them or whether a simpler design solves the problem.

    The fastest way to be useful with Copilot Studio in 2026 is not to learn every feature. It is to learn the four things above, build one real agent, and resist the pull of outdated tutorials that still dominate the first page of search results.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    How do I get started with Copilot Studio in 2026 without wasting time on outdated tutorials?

    Skip the classic topic-and-trigger-phrase approach and go straight to building a generative orchestration agent. Focus on writing clear instructions, connecting knowledge sources, and designing reliable tools rather than learning the node-based dialog editor.

    What is generative orchestration in Copilot Studio and why does it matter?

    Generative orchestration is now the default approach for new agents in Copilot Studio, where the agent uses AI to handle conversation flow rather than following a rigid dialog tree. It reduces the need to manually write dozens of trigger phrases and scales far better than the older topic-based model.

    Why does my Copilot Studio agent feel rigid and break when users ask unexpected questions?

    This usually happens when the agent is built around a topic tree with trigger phrases, which only handles the exact variations you anticipated. Switching to a generative orchestration approach with well-written instructions and grounded knowledge sources makes the agent much more flexible.

    When should I still use topics in Copilot Studio?

    Topics are still useful when a specific flow must follow a strict, predictable script, such as a regulated process or a form-style interaction with no variation. They work best as guardrails for those edge cases rather than as the foundation of the entire agent.

  • Power Pages Just Got Server-Side Logic You Can Actually Generate With AI

    Power Pages Just Got Server-Side Logic You Can Actually Generate With AI

    Power Pages server side logic AI code generation with GitHub Copilot and Claude Code CLI

    Power Pages server-side logic has always been where the low-code promise quietly falls apart. You get a clean design studio, drag-and-drop layouts, reasonable out-of-the-box forms. Then someone asks for server-side validation that cannot safely run in the browser, a secure external API call where the key can never touch the client, or a multi-table transaction that needs to complete before a Dataverse record is committed. And these three new skills are for modern single-page application (SPA) Power Pages sites specifically — not the classic Liquid-templated architecture — which matters if your audience spans both worlds. And suddenly you’re either writing it from scratch by hand, spending an afternoon in documentation, or handing it off to someone on a proper dev team and waiting. I came across a post from the Microsoft Power Platform Blog about three new agentic code skills for the Power Pages plugin, and it hit on something I’ve been thinking about for a while: the ceiling for what a single automation developer can ship in Power Pages without a dedicated dev team behind them just moved.

    What Server-Side Logic in Power Pages Actually Means and Why It Was Always the Hard Part

    Power Pages is a low/no-code portal builder sitting on top of Dataverse. The studio handles most of the front-end work reasonably well. But portals have always had a split personality. There’s what you can configure visually, and then there’s the layer underneath. For modern SPA-style Power Pages sites, that means server-side JavaScript endpoints that handle validation, secrets, and external API calls; Cloud Flow connections for backend automation; and integrations with systems that can’t be wired directly from the browser. That second layer is not configuration. It is code. And it requires context about your specific environment to write correctly.

    This is why generic AI code generation has never worked well here. Asking an LLM to write you a server-side endpoint without knowing your Dataverse schema, your table structure, or your page context produces something that compiles and fails as soon as you wire it to real data. The model doesn’t know your environment. You end up doing the real work yourself anyway, just with a plausible-looking starting point that may or may not match reality.

    What These Agentic Code Skills Actually Do When You Run Them

    The specific thing that matters here is scope. These are not general-purpose code suggestions. The plugin is grounded in your actual Power Pages site. It understands your tables, your site settings, your page context — because architect agents analyze your actual code and query your Dataverse environment before generating anything. Then they propose specific changes for your review before anything is applied. That propose-then-approve loop is not a limitation; it is a selling point. You stay in control of what lands in your site. When you describe the server-side behaviour you need, the generated code is scoped to your environment, not a hypothetical portal that shares no properties with yours.

    That is the distinction most people will miss when they skim the announcement. The three new skills are /add-server-logic, which generates server-side JavaScript endpoints for validation, secrets management, and cross-entity operations; /add-cloud-flow, for connecting backend automation; and /integrate-backend, for wiring in external systems. These join six existing skills in the plugin — nine total. Each one is pulling from what the plugin already knows about your site structure. The output is contextually aware in the same way that Claude operating with good tool design returns useful results because it has real signals to work with, not because the model is smarter in isolation. I wrote about this in the context of agentic workflows generally: tool design is an API design problem, and what makes these skills interesting is that Microsoft has done that tool design work to give the model actual environmental context to reason against. If you want to go deeper on how Claude functions as that reasoning layer in enterprise contexts, Claude as an Orchestration Brain Is the Most Interesting Thing Happening in Enterprise AI Right Now covers the architecture side of that in more detail.

    The Claude Code CLI path is worth calling out specifically. If you’re already working with Claude for orchestration or code tasks outside the Power Platform, having it also handle your Power Pages server-side work inside the same workflow is practically useful. You’re not switching contexts or tools.

    The Specific Scenario Where I Would Use This First

    The scenario I keep running into internally is validation logic that cannot run client-side — business rules that reference data from other tables, check against external state, or need to complete before a Dataverse write is committed. That is exactly the /add-server-logic case: a server-side JavaScript endpoint that runs the check first, keeps any secrets out of the browser, and returns a clean result to the form. Describing that condition and getting generated code that already references your actual table names and schema cuts the build time significantly. That’s the first thing I’d point this at.

    The second would be secure external API calls where credentials cannot touch the browser at all. You describe the integration — what the endpoint expects, what you need back — and /add-server-logic generates an endpoint that already references your actual environment. That is a different kind of useful than autocomplete, and it removes a class of security mistake that comes from passing keys through the client.

    Where This Still Has Limits and What You Still Need to Know Yourself

    I want to be direct about this because I’ve seen the same pattern play out with AI-assisted flow building in Power Automate: faster to working and closer to production are not the same thing. Generated server-side code that looks correct can still have permission boundary issues, silent failures on edge case inputs, or endpoint logic that works on the happy path and throws an unhandled error when a value comes back null from Dataverse. The model generates against your environment, but it does not run your QA process.

    You still need to understand how Power Pages table permissions actually interact with Web API calls. You still need to know what a plugin execution context looks like and where it can fail. If you’re purely vibe building with generated code and no mental model of what’s running underneath, you’ll ship something that passes your own demo and fails on the first real user submission. This is the same problem that comes up when adding Copilot to a Power App gets treated as a shortcut around understanding what’s actually running under the surface. The same principle I keep coming back to on my own work applies here: the AI is the generation layer, you are still the verification layer.

    That said, for an automation developer who already understands the Power Pages architecture and just needs to move faster on the server-side code parts, this is genuinely useful. The ceiling for what one person can build without a dedicated dev team behind them has moved. I’ll be testing this on the next portal build that needs real server-side work, and I’m curious how much of the scaffolding holds up in practice.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    How do I generate server-side logic for Power Pages using AI?

    You can use the three new agentic code skills available through the Power Pages plugin, which work with tools like GitHub Copilot or Claude Code CLI. Unlike generic AI tools, these skills are grounded in your actual site environment, so the generated server-side endpoints, Cloud Flow connections, and backend integrations are written against your specific Dataverse schema and site structure rather than a generic example. Note that these three skills are designed for modern SPA-style Power Pages sites, not classic Liquid-based portals.

    What is the difference between Power Pages server-side logic and front-end configuration?

    Front-end configuration in Power Pages covers layouts, forms, and visual design handled through the studio. For modern SPA-style Power Pages, server-side logic refers to the layer underneath the client: JavaScript endpoints for validation and external calls, Cloud Flow integrations for backend automation, and connections to external systems. This layer is not configuration — it is code that requires environment-specific context to write correctly. This second layer requires actual coding knowledge and environment-specific context to get right.

    Do these Power Pages agentic code skills work with classic Liquid-based sites?

    No. The three new skills — /add-server-logic, /add-cloud-flow, and /integrate-backend — are designed for modern single-page application (SPA) Power Pages sites, not classic Liquid-templated portals. If your Power Pages work is primarily in the classic architecture, these skills do not apply to your current stack.

    When should I use AI-generated plugin logic in Power Pages instead of writing it manually?

    AI-generated plugin scaffolding is most useful when you need to enforce business rules on record creation or updates and want a working starting point built around your actual Dataverse tables. It reduces the time spent in documentation and removes the dependency on a dedicated development team for straightforward but environment-specific server-side requirements.

    Source: Build your server-side logic with AI: new Power Pages Agentic Code skills (Microsoft Power Platform Blog).

  • Why Power Automate Is Still Worth Learning in 2026

    Why Power Automate Is Still Worth Learning in 2026

    Developer reviewing Power Automate flow structure on screen, representing why you should learn Power Automate in 2026

    I keep hearing a version of the same idea from people just getting into the Microsoft stack. Why spend time learning Power Automate when you can describe what you want to a Copilot Studio agent and have it figure out the execution? The assumption behind that question is that Power Automate is scaffolding you work around, not something you need to understand. That assumption is costing people real time. If you want to learn Power Automate in 2026, the argument for doing it has not weakened. It has gotten stronger.

    The ‘Just Use an Agent’ Shortcut Has a Hidden Cost

    Copilot Studio agents and AI-assisted flow building have made it faster to get something working. That part is real. The problem is that faster to working and closer to production are not the same thing.

    I have seen this pattern repeatedly. Someone builds an agentic workflow, the demo runs cleanly, and then it breaks in production in a way they cannot explain. Not because the agent reasoning was wrong. Because the underlying flow had no retry logic, the connection was using a shared credential that hit a rate limit under load, or a step was silently failing and passing a null value forward. The agent kept going. The result was wrong. Nobody knew until downstream.

    I wrote about this dynamic in the context of agentic workflows before. An agent that generates a confident-sounding response for a task that did not complete destroys user trust faster than almost any other failure mode. The agent is the reasoning layer. Power Automate is still the execution layer. If you do not understand the execution layer, you cannot debug what the reasoning layer is telling you went wrong.

    What Power Automate Actually Does That Nothing Else Replaces

    Power Automate is where things actually run inside a Microsoft-stack enterprise. SharePoint events, Teams messages, Dataverse writes, approval routing, HTTP callouts to external APIs, scheduled jobs, document generation triggers. The connectors, the authentication, the retry behaviour, the action limits. All of it lives here.

    Copilot Studio can call a Power Automate flow. An AI Builder model can feed into one. An agent can trigger one. But the flow is what actually touches the system of record. When something goes wrong at 2am and you are looking at a run history, you need to know what you are reading. You need to know whether a 429 error is platform-level throttling or connector-level throttling, because the fix is different. I spent a full post on exactly that distinction and it is still one of the most common misdiagnoses I hear about. Applying the wrong fix because you conflated the two layers is a common reason throttling problems persist after troubleshooting.

    That kind of mechanical understanding does not come from describing what you want to an agent. It comes from building flows, watching them fail, and understanding why. The Microsoft Learn documentation for Power Automate covers the connector model and trigger types well, but the intuition for where things go wrong only comes from time in the tool.

    What I Would Focus on Learning First

    If I were starting today, I would ignore the visual polish and go straight to the things that bite you in production.

    Trigger types first. Automated, scheduled, and instant triggers behave differently. Understanding which one is firing your flow, and why, is foundational. A flow that should run once per item can run multiple times if the trigger is misconfigured and the conditions are wrong.

    Then connector authentication. Service principal vs. shared connection vs. connection reference. In enterprise environments, shared personal connections on flows that other people own is a support incident waiting to happen. Connection references and service principals exist for a reason. Learn them before you need them.

    Then error handling. Specifically, configure run after on every branch that matters. A flow that has no error path is a flow that fails silently. Silent failures in automation are worse than loud ones. I have written about how automated processes have no equivalent to a human noticing something feels off and escalating. Automating a bad process just makes it fail faster, and the exception silently propagates instead. Configure run after is the closest thing Power Automate gives you to that instinct.

    Apply to each concurrency settings come next. The default behaviour is sequential. Changing it to parallel speeds things up and introduces race conditions if you are not careful. Knowing when to use which, and how to tune it, matters the moment you are processing more than a handful of records.

    Where This Knowledge Starts Paying Off in More Advanced Work

    Once you understand how flows are structured and where they fail, everything built on top of them becomes more readable. Copilot Studio action steps that call flows stop being black boxes. You can look at what a cloud flow is doing inside an agent and understand whether the tool response is reliable. You can design the tool contract properly instead of returning a status that gives the agent nothing to evaluate.

    The people I talk to at other organisations who are building agentic workflows that actually hold up in production share one thing. They did not skip the foundation. They know what happens inside the flow the agent is calling. They know what a bad intermediate result looks like and they have built the error paths to catch it before it propagates.

    The practitioners skipping straight to orchestration are building things that look impressive in demos and require constant firefighting after launch. That gap in reliability traces back to the same place every time. They do not know the execution layer well enough to control it.

    Learning Power Automate in 2026 is not about catching up on something old. It is about having the mechanical understanding that makes everything else you build on the Microsoft stack actually reliable. That foundation is still the thing that separates flows that work from flows that work until they do not.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Is it still worth it to learn Power Automate in 2026?

    Yes, learning Power Automate in 2026 remains valuable because it is the execution layer for almost everything that runs inside a Microsoft-stack enterprise. AI tools and agents can help you build flows faster, but you still need to understand how flows work to debug failures, handle errors, and get workflows into production reliably.

    What is the difference between Copilot Studio and Power Automate?

    Copilot Studio handles the reasoning and decision-making layer, while Power Automate is the execution layer that actually interacts with systems like SharePoint, Dataverse, and external APIs. An agent can trigger a flow, but the flow is what performs the real work and touches the system of record.

    Why does my Power Automate flow work in testing but fail in production?

    Common causes include missing retry logic, shared credentials hitting rate limits under load, or steps that silently fail and pass null values forward. These issues are easy to miss during demos but become serious problems at scale, which is why understanding flow structure matters beyond just getting something running.

    When should I learn Power Automate instead of relying on AI-generated flows?

    You should invest in learning Power Automate when you are responsible for workflows that need to be reliable in production, not just functional in a demo. If you cannot read a run history or diagnose a throttling error, you will struggle to fix failures that AI tooling alone cannot explain.

  • Claude as an Orchestration Brain Is the Most Interesting Thing Happening in Enterprise AI Right Now

    Claude as an Orchestration Brain Is the Most Interesting Thing Happening in Enterprise AI Right Now

    Most of the conversation around Claude in enterprise automation circles is stuck on the wrong question. People are comparing it to GPT-4o or Gemini as a text generator, debating which one writes better emails or summarises documents more accurately. That framing completely misses what makes Claude enterprise automation orchestration genuinely interesting right now.

    The practitioners I talk to who are getting real results are not using Claude as a chatbot. They are using it as the reasoning layer that decides what to do next in a multi-step, stateful workflow. That is a different problem than answering a question, and it changes everything about where Claude fits in your architecture.

    The chatbot framing is getting in the way

    When a team says they want to “add Claude” to something, the default mental model is a chat interface. User sends message, model replies. Maybe it calls a tool or two. That is not orchestration. That is a smarter input box.

    Orchestration is what happens when you need a model to receive a complex goal, break it into sequenced steps, call different tools at different points, evaluate intermediate results, and decide whether to continue, retry, or escalate. The model is not answering a question. It is managing execution across a process that has state, has branching conditions, and has consequences if it goes wrong.

    I wrote about this problem directly in the post on agentic workflows. The LLM is not the agent. The LLM is the reasoning layer. If you treat them as the same thing, you end up bolting a model onto the response step of what is really just a structured flow. That is not orchestration. That is decoration.

    What makes Claude specifically interesting for orchestration logic

    Two things stand out when I look at how Claude behaves in multi-step contexts compared to other models at similar capability levels.

    First, instruction following under load. When you give Claude a detailed system prompt with conditional logic, constraints, tool-use rules, and output format requirements, it holds those instructions across a long session more reliably than most alternatives. With other models I have tested, instruction drift starts showing up once you push past a few thousand tokens of context. Claude handles longer, more complex prompts without silently dropping constraints mid-execution. For orchestration, where the system prompt is essentially your process logic written in natural language, that matters a lot.

    Second, the extended context window is not just about volume. It is about statefulness. A workflow that processes a contract, then a set of approval records, then a policy document, then makes a decision that references all three needs a model that can hold all of that in scope simultaneously. Losing context partway through an orchestration run means the model makes decisions with incomplete information. It does not know it has incomplete information. It proceeds confidently anyway. I have seen exactly this failure mode in Copilot Studio agents, where silent context loss leads to confident-sounding responses for tasks that were never properly evaluated.

    Where I would actually slot this into a Power Platform architecture

    I would not replace the existing orchestration layer in a Power Automate flow with a Claude prompt. That is not the use case. Power Automate is still the right place for deterministic, sequential steps with connectors, triggers, and error handling you can inspect.

    Where Claude earns its place is in the decision layer that sits above or between those steps. Think of a workflow that processes incoming requests, where each request has variable structure, ambiguous intent, and routing logic that depends on context that changes week to week. A hard-coded set of conditions in Power Automate will break the moment the business logic shifts. A Claude orchestration layer that reads the request, evaluates the current context loaded from Dataverse, and decides which downstream flow to invoke handles that variability without you rewriting conditions every time.

    In practice, I would build it as a Copilot Studio agent backed by Claude through a custom connector or direct API call, where Claude handles the reasoning and routing logic and Power Automate handles execution of the discrete steps. The agent decides. The flows act. The separation matters because it keeps your execution logic testable and your reasoning logic flexible. Before wiring any of this together, it is also worth auditing what adding Copilot to an existing app actually changes versus what it just surfaces differently.

    The governance piece from the post on enterprise Power Platform applies here too. Calling an external Anthropic API endpoint means your orchestration reasoning is leaving the tenant. That is an audit trail split and a DLP conversation you need to have before you build, not after.

    The honest constraints before you redesign anything

    Claude is not a free variable. Longer context windows mean higher token costs per run, and orchestration workflows that run hundreds of times a day will surface that quickly in billing. Model latency at high context volumes is also real. If your process requires sub-second decisions, this is not your tool.

    The other constraint is testability. When your orchestration logic lives in a system prompt rather than a flow diagram, reproducing a failure is harder. The model made a bad routing decision on Tuesday afternoon. Why? You need logging at the prompt level, not just at the action level. Most teams I see building this way have not set that up, and they hit the same silent failure problem I described in the Copilot Studio testing post: everything looks fine until a real user finds the edge case.

    Claude as an orchestration brain is a genuinely different capability than what most teams are building with today. The question is not whether it is smarter than the last model. The question is whether your architecture is designed to use a reasoning layer at all, or whether you are still just looking for a better chatbot to put at the front of a process that was never designed to be orchestrated.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is Claude enterprise automation orchestration and how is it different from using Claude as a chatbot?

    Claude enterprise automation orchestration means using Claude as the reasoning layer that manages multi-step workflows, rather than as a simple question-and-answer interface. Instead of responding to single prompts, Claude receives a complex goal, breaks it into steps, calls tools, evaluates results, and decides how to proceed. This requires stateful, branching logic that goes well beyond what a chat interface is designed to handle.

    Why does instruction drift matter when using an LLM for workflow orchestration?

    In orchestration, your system prompt acts as the process logic for the entire workflow, so if the model quietly forgets constraints or rules mid-execution, the whole process can break or produce incorrect outcomes. Some models begin losing adherence to instructions as context grows, which is a serious problem in long-running enterprise workflows. Consistency across extended sessions is one of the key reasons practitioners favour certain models for this use case.

    When should I use an LLM as an orchestration layer instead of a traditional workflow tool?

    An LLM-based orchestration layer becomes valuable when your workflow involves conditional reasoning, ambiguous inputs, or decisions that depend on synthesising information from multiple sources rather than following a fixed rule set. If your process logic can be fully mapped in advance and never changes based on context, a traditional workflow tool is likely simpler and more reliable. The LLM adds value where judgment and adaptability are required at execution time.

    How does a large context window improve multi-step enterprise workflows?

    A large context window allows the model to hold all relevant documents, intermediate results, and prior decisions in scope at once, rather than losing earlier information as the workflow progresses. This matters in processes that require a final decision to reference multiple earlier inputs, such as reviewing a contract alongside approval records and a policy document. Losing that context mid-run can lead to decisions that are inconsistent with earlier steps in the same workflow.

  • Adding Copilot to Your Power App Is Not the Same as Making It Smarter

    Adding Copilot to Your Power App Is Not the Same as Making It Smarter

    Microsoft published a post this week about making business apps smarter by embedding Copilot, app skills, and agents directly into Power Apps. The features are real and some of them are genuinely useful. But I keep seeing teams read announcements like that and immediately open their existing apps to start wiring things in. That is where it goes wrong. Adding Copilot to Power Apps does not make the app smarter. It makes the AI visible. Those are different things.

    What App Skills and Agent Integration Actually Do Under the Hood

    When you expose a Power App as an app skill or embed a Copilot Studio agent into a canvas app, you are giving the AI a surface to operate on. The agent can read context from the app, trigger actions, and return responses into the UI. In theory, the AI bridges what the user needs and what the app can do.

    In practice, the agent is only as capable as what you hand it. It reads data from your app’s data sources. It calls the actions you have defined. It interprets user intent against the topics and instructions you have written. If your data model is inconsistent, your actions are incomplete, or your process logic has gaps, the agent does not compensate for any of that. It just operates on top of it and returns confident-sounding responses anyway.

    I wrote about this problem in a different context when covering why Copilot Studio agents fail in production. Silent action failures are one of the nastiest issues: the agent completes its response, the user thinks something happened, nothing actually did. That risk does not disappear when you move the agent inside a Power App. If anything, it gets harder to spot because users expect the app to be reliable.

    Why the Data Model and UX Structure Matter More Than the AI Feature

    Most Power Apps I have seen built inside large organisations were designed around a specific, narrow workflow. The data model reflects decisions made at the time of build, often under time pressure, often by someone who is no longer on the team. Fields are repurposed. Status columns hold values that mean three different things depending on which team is using them. Lookup tables have orphaned records nobody cleaned up.

    When you put an agent on top of that, the agent queries this data and tries to give useful answers. The answers will be coherent. They will not be correct. Not reliably.

    The UX structure compounds this. Canvas apps built for point-and-click navigation do not automatically become good AI surfaces. If a user can ask the agent to update a record, but the app’s own form has fifteen required fields and three conditional rules that only run client-side, you now have a conflict between what the agent can do via a Power Automate action and what the app enforces through its UI. One of them will win. It will not always be the right one.

    This is the same argument I made about automating a bad process. The automation does not fix the process, it executes it faster and more consistently, including the broken parts. Embedding AI into a poorly structured app works the same way.

    What I Check Before Wiring Any Agent Into an Existing App

    Before I connect anything to a Copilot Studio agent or enable app skills on an existing Power App, I go through a short audit. Not a formal document. Just four questions that save a lot of cleanup later.

    • Is the data model clean enough to query? If the same concept is stored in three different columns across two tables with inconsistent naming, the agent will surface that inconsistency directly to the user. Fix the model first.
    • Are the actions the agent can trigger complete and safe? Every Power Automate flow an agent can call needs proper error handling and a defined failure response. Silent failures inside agent topics are a known problem. If the flow does not return a clear success or failure, the agent cannot respond accurately.
    • Does the app enforce rules that the agent needs to know about? If business logic lives only in Power Fx expressions inside the app’s forms, the agent does not see it. Validation that matters needs to exist at the data layer or inside the flows the agent calls.
    • Is the process the app supports well-defined enough to describe to an AI? If I cannot write a clear system prompt describing what the agent should and should not do in this app, the process is not ready. Ambiguity in the process becomes ambiguity in agent behaviour.

    When Embedding AI in a Power App Is Worth It and When It Is Not

    There are genuinely good cases for this. An app where users regularly need to find records across complex filters is a reasonable candidate. Surfacing a conversational shortcut to navigate a large dataset, trigger a common action, or get a summary of a record without clicking through multiple screens can reduce real friction. I have seen it work well when the underlying data is clean and the scope of what the agent can do is narrow and explicit.

    The cases where it is not worth it yet are more common. An app with inconsistent data. A process with unresolved exceptions. A UX that was never designed with AI interaction in mind. In those situations, embedding an agent creates a new layer of support burden without a proportional benefit.

    I also want to be direct about something I mentioned in my post on when Copilot Studio is the wrong choice: not every interaction benefits from being conversational. Some things in a Power App are faster as a button. The AI control is not always an upgrade on a well-placed filter or a clear form layout.

    Connect with Halilcan Soran on LinkedIn for more insights on Power Apps and AI integration.

  • Automating a Bad Process Just Makes It Fail Faster

    Automating a Bad Process Just Makes It Fail Faster

    I came across a post from Zapier Blog about process improvement recently, and it made a familiar point: most broken work isn’t actually broken work, it’s a broken process behind it. Messy handoffs, unclear ownership, approvals that live in one person’s head. Good framing. But it treats process improvement before automation as something you do once, upfront, like a checklist item you can tick and move past. In enterprise Power Platform work, that assumption is where things go wrong.

    What Building Automations Teaches You About How Work Actually Flows

    When you sit down to build a flow, you have to make the process machine-readable. That means every branch needs a condition. Every input needs a defined type. Every approval needs an owner. Every exception needs a path.

    Most processes handed over for automation have none of that. What they have instead is a document someone wrote two years ago, a few spreadsheets nobody fully trusts, and a senior colleague who holds the real logic in their head and has been doing it long enough that they don’t notice the decisions they’re making.

    The automation developer ends up being the first person to actually interrogate the process at that level of detail. Not because they went looking for it, but because the flow won’t build until the ambiguity is resolved. You cannot write a condition on a field that sometimes exists and sometimes doesn’t. You cannot route an approval to a role when the role changes depending on factors nobody documented.

    This is not a Power Platform problem. It surfaces in every serious automation project I’ve heard about across different organisations. The tool just makes the gaps visible faster than any process workshop usually does.

    The Specific Process Failures That Surface When You Try to Automate

    There are a few categories I keep running into.

    Unclear ownership. A task gets triggered, but nobody agreed who acts on it. The automation sends an email. Nobody responds. The flow sits waiting. Eventually it times out. Everyone blames the automation.

    Inconsistent inputs. The data coming in doesn’t conform to any standard. Fields are free text when they should be dropdowns. Dates are formatted three different ways. Required fields are blank because the upstream system never enforced them. Your flow handles the clean case fine and breaks silently on everything else. I wrote about this kind of silent failure in the context of Copilot Studio agents failing in production, but the same thing happens in flows where bad input just passes through without raising an error until something downstream breaks.

    Approval logic nobody can fully articulate. You ask who approves a request above a certain threshold. You get three different answers from three different people. All of them are confident. When you automate the majority answer, you will eventually automate the wrong one for someone’s edge case, and that person will be senior enough that it becomes your problem.

    Exception handling that lives in tribal knowledge. The manual process survives because a human notices something feels off and picks up the phone. The automated process has no equivalent. The exception just propagates.

    Why Fixing the Process First Does Not Mean Waiting to Build

    The standard advice is to fix the process before you automate it. That advice is correct and also almost never followed, because the people who own the process don’t feel urgency until they see the automation breaking. The broken automation is what creates the pressure to fix the underlying problem.

    This doesn’t mean you should automate bad processes and hope for the best. It means process improvement and automation are parallel work, not sequential steps. You build, you find the gap, you surface it to the right person, you agree on a rule, you build that rule into the flow. Then you find the next gap.

    The first build is often a diagnostic as much as a delivery. You are not just producing a flow. You are producing a map of where the process is genuinely undefined. That map is more useful than most process workshops, because it was produced by the requirement to actually execute the logic rather than describe it at a whiteboard.

    The risk is treating that diagnostic build as the final product. It isn’t. The flow that handles the happy path and ignores edge cases is not done. It is a prototype that revealed the real work. Those edge cases are also where Power Automate throttling limits tend to surface, once real volume hits paths that were never properly stress-tested.

    How to Pressure-Test Process Logic Before You Commit It to a Flow

    Before building anything complex, I walk through the process as if I were writing the conditions myself, not interviewing someone about it. Specifically:

    • Ask what happens when a required field is missing. If the answer is “that doesn’t happen,” it will happen.
    • Ask who the fallback approver is when the primary approver is unavailable. If there isn’t one, your flow will block silently until someone notices.
    • Ask what the exception path looks like and who owns it. If the answer is vague, you have found the part of the process that was always handled by instinct rather than logic.
    • Take a real sample of historical cases and walk them through your intended logic manually before writing a single action. The cases that don’t fit cleanly are the ones that will break production.

    This is not a formal methodology. It is just refusing to start building until the people handing over the process can articulate it clearly enough that you could explain it to someone else and they would reach the same conclusions. When they can’t, that gap is not a problem with your discovery process. It is the actual problem you are being asked to solve. As Halilcan Soran on LinkedIn and others working in enterprise automation have found, this kind of rigorous process interrogation is often what separates automations that survive their first month in production from the ones that quietly fail or require constant manual workarounds. If you want to understand how Power Platform automation should work at scale, this pressure-testing phase is non-negotiable.

  • Copilot Studio Is Not Always the Answer

    Copilot Studio Is Not Always the Answer

    I keep seeing this on LinkedIn and in community forums. Someone describes an internal use case, and the first five replies are all “have you tried Copilot Studio?” The tool has gotten good enough that it has become the reflexive answer to any question involving automation, conversation, or AI. That reflex is causing real problems. Knowing when Copilot Studio is the wrong tool is as important as knowing how to build with it well.

    When Copilot Studio Is the Wrong Tool for the Job

    Most misuse I see falls into one of three situations. The use case is purely transactional. The interaction model is not conversational. Or the team wants a workflow, not an agent.

    If someone needs to submit a form, approve a request, or trigger a process on a schedule, that is Power Automate territory. Putting a conversational interface in front of a single-action task does not make it better. It makes it slower, harder to test, and harder to maintain. Users do not want to type a sentence to do something they could do in two clicks.

    The second situation is harder to spot. Some interactions look conversational but are not. A knowledge base search, a document lookup, a status check. These are point-in-time queries with no real back-and-forth. You could build them in Copilot Studio. You could also build them as a Power Apps canvas app with a simple search interface and ship it in a day with less moving parts and a much more predictable failure surface.

    The Agent Complexity Problem

    There is also a complexity ceiling that teams hit faster than expected. Copilot Studio agents work well when the conversation scope is tight. One domain. A few topics. Defined intents. When someone tries to build a single agent that handles HR queries, IT requests, and finance approvals inside the same session, topic routing starts failing at the edges. I wrote about this in Your Copilot Studio Agent Passed Every Test and Still Failed in Production. When a user’s phrasing sits between two topics, the agent picks one confidently and gets it wrong. The more topics you add, the more edge cases you create, and the harder they are to test systematically.

    The instinct to build one agent that does everything is understandable. It feels cleaner. In practice it produces an agent that does everything poorly and fails in ways that are genuinely difficult to diagnose.

    Where the Wrong Choice Usually Starts

    It usually starts with the framing of the requirement. Someone says “we want a chatbot” and that phrase triggers Copilot Studio before anyone has defined what the interaction actually needs to do. I have seen teams spend weeks building agent topics, writing generative AI prompts, and wiring up Power Automate actions, when what the users actually wanted was a better SharePoint search and a weekly digest email.

    The honest question to ask before opening Copilot Studio is this: does this use case genuinely require back-and-forth conversation, or does it just need to surface information or move data? If the answer is the second one, there is almost always a simpler path.

    This is not a knock on Copilot Studio. The tool is genuinely capable when it fits the problem. Handling multi-turn conversations, routing across complex intent patterns, integrating generative answers with structured actions, those are things it does well. But that capability comes with a real operational cost. There is a topic structure to maintain, system prompts that drift when production data introduces edge cases, Power Automate actions that can fail silently inside a topic and return a confident-sounding response for work that was never done.

    What to Reach for Instead

    Power Apps for anything with a fixed interaction model. Canvas apps are underrated for internal tooling. They give you a defined UI, predictable state, and a clear place to debug when something breaks.

    Power Automate for anything triggered, scheduled, or event-driven. If there is no user in the loop having a conversation, there is no reason for Copilot Studio to be involved. Keep in mind that even straightforward flows can run into issues at scale, as Power Automate throttling limits will break your flow in production under real load if you have not accounted for them.

    SharePoint or Dataverse with a search interface for knowledge retrieval. If users are looking something up, build a search experience, not a conversational one.

    In enterprise environments, the governance overhead of Copilot Studio also matters. You are managing an agent that generates natural language responses. That response quality needs to be reviewed, monitored, and occasionally corrected. Most teams I talk to underestimate this cost until they are three months into production and someone in legal asks why the agent said something it should not have.

    The Right Question Before You Build

    Before any Copilot Studio project starts, the question worth asking is not “how do we build this agent” but “does this use case actually need an agent.” If the answer requires you to stretch the definition of conversation to make it fit, that is a sign to stop and pick the simpler tool.

    Copilot Studio is a good tool. It is not a default. Using it where it fits produces something worth building. Using it where it does not produces something you will be maintaining and explaining for a long time.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    When should I use Copilot Studio instead of another tool?

    Copilot Studio works best when the interaction is genuinely conversational, scoped to a single domain, and involves a defined set of intents. If the task is transactional, point-in-time, or better served by a simple form or search interface, tools like Power Automate or Power Apps are likely a faster and more maintainable choice.

    What is the difference between Copilot Studio and Power Automate?

    Power Automate is built for workflow and process automation, such as form submissions, approvals, and scheduled triggers. Copilot Studio is designed for conversational agent experiences. Using Copilot Studio for single-action tasks adds unnecessary complexity without improving the user experience.

    Why does my Copilot Studio agent keep routing users to the wrong topic?

    Topic routing breaks down when an agent is built to handle too many domains or intents within a single session. When a user’s phrasing falls between two topics, the agent will confidently pick one and get it wrong. Keeping each agent focused on a narrow scope reduces these edge cases and makes failures easier to diagnose.

    How do I know if my use case actually needs a chatbot?

    Start by defining what the interaction needs to do before choosing a tool. If users need a back-and-forth conversation to complete a task, a conversational agent may be appropriate. If they need a search result, a status update, or a simple action, a canvas app or improved search interface will often deliver a better outcome in less time.

  • Low-Code Platform Comparisons Miss the Point for Enterprise Power Platform Teams

    Low-Code Platform Comparisons Miss the Point for Enterprise Power Platform Teams

    I came across a post from Zapier Blog ranking the best low-code automation platforms, and it reminded me of a conversation I keep having with stakeholders. Someone reads a roundup, sends it over, and asks why we are not using one of the other tools on the list. The question sounds reasonable. The comparison is not. For teams doing power platform for enterprise automation, these lists are almost always built around the wrong frame entirely.

    Why Platform Comparison Lists Are Built for Buyers Who Do Not Exist in Enterprise

    Roundups like this are useful for one type of reader: someone at a small company, starting from scratch, with no existing infrastructure, who needs to pick a tool this week. That reader exists. Most people building automation inside a large organisation are not that reader.

    Enterprise teams are not choosing between platforms in a vacuum. They are operating inside a tenant. They have an existing Microsoft 365 agreement. They have an IT security function that has already decided what can touch production data. They have a DLP policy, or they are about to have one. The question is never which platform wins a feature comparison. The question is what is already inside the perimeter and how far can it go.

    When the starting point is a Microsoft 365 E3 or E5 agreement, Power Platform is not an option on a menu. It is largely already there. The conversation is about how deeply to use it, not whether to adopt it at all.

    What These Roundups Get Wrong About How Power Platform Actually Works at Scale

    The comparisons that show up in these lists treat features as equivalent when they are not. They will note that Power Automate supports HTTP connectors, and so does Zapier, so check. They will note that both have flow triggers and conditional logic. Check and check.

    What they do not cover is how governance works when you have hundreds of flows built by dozens of makers across multiple environments. Power Platform has environment-level DLP policies that enforce which connectors can interact with which data classifications. You can block a connector tenant-wide from the admin centre. You can require solution-aware flows before anything goes near a production environment. None of that is a feature you evaluate in a roundup. It is architecture you depend on when something goes wrong at 2am and you need to know exactly what touched what.

    Connector-level governance also ties directly into Entra ID. Service principal authentication, conditional access policies, managed identities for flows that call Azure resources. These are not nice-to-haves. They are what your security team will ask about before any automation touches HR data or finance systems. A platform comparison that does not address this is not comparing the same thing your enterprise is actually buying.

    The Governance and Tenant Boundary Argument Nobody in These Lists Makes

    The argument that actually matters for enterprise teams is about the boundary. Everything inside your Microsoft tenant shares an identity layer, a licensing model, an audit log, and a set of compliance controls. Power Platform lives inside that boundary by design. When a Power Automate flow calls Dataverse, or a Copilot Studio agent hands off to an AI Builder model, or a Power App writes back to SharePoint, none of that crosses a boundary. It is all inside the same governance envelope.

    When you bring in a third-party automation tool, you immediately introduce a boundary crossing. Data leaves the tenant. Authentication has to be managed separately. Your audit trail splits. Your DLP logic does not follow. That is not an argument against ever using other tools. But it is the argument that platform comparison lists never make, because they are not written for people managing compliance obligations across a 10,000-person organisation.

    I have written before about how throttling in Power Automate has two distinct layers, platform-level and connector-level, and understanding which one you are hitting matters. The same principle applies here. There are two distinct layers to platform selection: what the tool can do, and what the tool is allowed to do inside your security perimeter. Most comparison articles only address the first layer.

    How to Respond When a Stakeholder Sends You One of These Articles

    This happens. Someone senior reads a roundup, sees that another tool scored well on ease of use or pricing, and asks a reasonable question. Here is how I handle it.

    First, do not get defensive about Power Platform. That reads as tribal and closes the conversation. Instead, reframe the question. The roundup is answering “which tool is easiest to try”. The enterprise question is “which tool can we govern, audit, and scale without introducing a new identity boundary or violating our data residency requirements”.

    Second, be specific about what already exists. If you have 200 flows in production, connectors pre-approved by security, an admin centre your IT team actually monitors, and makers who already know the platform, the switching cost is not zero. It is very large. That context belongs in the conversation.

    Third, acknowledge what the other tools do well. Zapier is genuinely easier to set up for a simple two-step integration. Make has a visual canvas that some people find clearer than Power Automate’s. Agreeing on the narrow case where another tool wins builds credibility for the broader argument about why it does not win at enterprise scale. The same logic applies when teams start layering AI into their automations: as I explored in Agentic Workflows Are Not Just Fancy Automation, adding an AI layer does not transform a poorly governed process into a reliable one, regardless of which platform you are on.

    The roundup is not wrong. It is just answering a different question. Once you say that clearly, the conversation usually moves to something more useful than defending a platform choice that was effectively made the day the Microsoft agreement was signed.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Why should enterprises use Power Platform for enterprise automation instead of other low-code tools?

    For most large organisations, Power Platform is already included in their Microsoft 365 agreement, so the decision is less about choosing a tool and more about how deeply to use one that is already available. It also integrates directly with existing Microsoft security infrastructure, including Entra ID, conditional access policies, and tenant-level governance controls that other platforms simply cannot replicate in that environment.

    How do I govern Power Automate flows across a large organisation?

    Power Platform allows admins to apply environment-level DLP policies that control which connectors can access which types of data, and connectors can be blocked tenant-wide from the admin centre. Requiring solution-aware flows before anything reaches a production environment adds another layer of control, giving teams a clear audit trail when something needs investigating.

    What is a DLP policy in Power Platform and why does it matter for enterprise teams?

    A DLP (Data Loss Prevention) policy in Power Platform defines which connectors can interact with business or sensitive data within a given environment. For enterprise teams handling HR or finance data, these policies are a security requirement rather than an optional feature, and they are enforced at the tenant level rather than left to individual flow builders.

    When should I question a low-code platform comparison for enterprise use?

    Most platform comparison lists are designed for small teams starting from scratch with no existing infrastructure, which is a very different situation from a large organisation with an established Microsoft 365 tenancy and security requirements already in place. If a comparison does not address governance at scale, service principal authentication, or tenant boundary controls, it is not evaluating the same things your enterprise actually needs.

    Source: The 7 best low-code automation platforms in 2026 (Zapier Blog).

  • Your Copilot Studio Agent Passed Every Test and Still Failed in Production

    Your Copilot Studio Agent Passed Every Test and Still Failed in Production

    I came across a post from Zapier Blog about AI agent evaluation, and it described something I keep seeing inside large organisations: an agent that looks perfect in a demo, gets signed off, goes live, and then immediately starts doing things nobody expected. Wrong tool calls. Conversation loops that never resolve. Outputs that look confident and are completely wrong. The post frames this well as a sandbox problem. But the fix it describes, better test coverage and smarter metrics, only gets you partway there. The deeper issue with Copilot Studio agent testing is not the quantity of your tests. It is what you are actually testing for.

    Why Demo-Passing Agents Break in Real Workflows

    When a team builds an agent in Copilot Studio, they test it against the happy path. A user asks a clean question. The agent triggers the right topic or action. The response looks good. Someone in the review meeting says it works great. The agent gets promoted to production.

    The problem is that real users do not ask clean questions. They ask incomplete ones. They switch intent halfway through a conversation. They paste in text that includes formatting your prompt never anticipated. They use your agent for things it was never designed to do, because nothing in the interface tells them not to.

    None of that shows up in a demo. It shows up three days after go-live when someone forwards you a conversation log that reads like a stress test you forgot to run.

    The Three Failure Modes I Keep Seeing in Copilot Studio Agents

    After building and reviewing a number of agents internally, the failures cluster into three patterns.

    Topic misrouting at the edges. Your agent routes correctly when the user says exactly what you expected. But natural language is messy. When a user’s phrasing sits between two topics, the agent picks one confidently and gets it wrong. You only discover this when someone captures a failed session and traces it back. By then, a dozen other users have hit the same wall and just stopped using the agent.

    Action failures that degrade silently. A Power Automate flow or a connector action fails in the background and the agent carries on as if nothing happened. No error surfaced. No fallback triggered. The user gets a response that implies the task completed. It did not. This is the agent equivalent of a flow that retries quietly and masks the problem until the load goes up. I wrote about that pattern in the context of Power Automate throttling limits breaking flows under real load. The same logic applies here: silent success is not success.

    Prompt instruction drift under real data. Your system prompt was written against clean test data. Production data is not clean. It has unexpected characters, long strings, mixed languages, or values that push the model toward an interpretation you did not intend. The agent’s behaviour drifts. Not catastrophically. Just enough to become unreliable in ways that are hard to reproduce and harder to explain to stakeholders.

    How to Build a Behavioral Test Suite Instead of an Output Checklist

    Most teams build an output checklist. Did the agent return the right answer for these ten questions? That tells you almost nothing about production behaviour.

    What you actually need is a behavioral test suite. The difference is this: output testing checks what the agent said. Behavioral testing checks how the agent handled the situation.

    Here is how I approach it inside Copilot Studio before promoting anything to production.

    Build adversarial input sets, not just representative ones. For every topic your agent handles, write three versions of the trigger: the clean version, an ambiguous version that could belong to two topics, and a broken version with incomplete or oddly formatted input. If the agent routes all three correctly, you have something worth shipping. If it fails on the ambiguous case, you have a routing gap that will hit real users constantly.

    Test conversation state, not just single turns. Copilot Studio agents hold context across a conversation. Test what happens when a user changes their mind on turn three. Test what happens when they ask a follow-up that assumes context the agent should have retained but might not. Single-turn testing misses an entire class of failure that only appears in multi-turn sessions. This is also why agentic workflows require a fundamentally different design approach, not just an AI layer placed on top of existing processes.

    Inject real data samples into action inputs. Pull a sample of actual data from your environment and run it through the actions your agent calls. Do not use synthetic test data if you can avoid it. Real data has edge cases your synthetic data will never cover. If your agent calls a flow that queries a SharePoint list, run the query against the actual list with actual entries, including the ones with blank fields and formatting you did not anticipate.

    Define explicit fallback behaviour and test it deliberately. Every agent should have a defined behaviour for when it cannot complete a task. Most teams add a fallback topic and assume it works. Test it by constructing inputs that should trigger it. If the fallback does not fire, or fires on the wrong inputs, fix it before go-live. A graceful failure is far better than a confident wrong answer.

    What to Monitor After Go-Live and When to Pull an Agent Back

    Testing before launch is necessary but not sufficient. Agent behaviour shifts as the inputs it receives in production diverge from what you tested against. You need monitoring in place from day one.

    Track escalation rate and abandon rate per topic. If a topic is seeing significantly higher escalations than others, that is a signal of routing or response quality problems, not user error. Track action failure rates separately from conversation outcomes. An agent can complete a conversation and still have failed to do the thing the user needed.

    Set a threshold before launch. If escalation rate exceeds a number you agree on in advance, or if a specific action is failing more than a defined percentage of the time, you pull the agent back or disable the affected topic. The threshold is arbitrary. Having no threshold at all is not.

    The agents I have seen hold up in production are not the ones with the most sophisticated prompts. They are the ones where someone spent real time on the failure cases before launch and built actual monitoring into the plan from the start.

    If you are still signing off agents based on demo performance, you are not testing. You are hoping.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Why does my Copilot Studio agent testing pass in demos but fail in production?

    Most Copilot Studio agent testing is built around ideal user inputs and predictable conversation paths, which do not reflect how real users actually behave. In production, users ask incomplete questions, switch intent mid-conversation, and use the agent in unintended ways that no demo ever surfaces. Testing needs to go beyond the happy path to catch these edge cases before go-live.

    What are the most common failure modes in Copilot Studio agents?

    The three patterns that appear most often are topic misrouting when user phrasing falls between two intents, action failures that complete silently without triggering any error or fallback, and prompt instructions that break down when they encounter messy real-world data. Each of these can go undetected in testing because they only emerge under realistic conditions.

    How do I know if a Power Automate action failed inside my Copilot Studio agent?

    Silent action failures are a serious risk because the agent can continue the conversation and imply a task completed when it did not. You need explicit error handling and fallback logic in your flows so that failures surface to the user rather than being masked by a confident-sounding response.

    When should I test my Copilot Studio agent against real production data?

    You should test against realistic data before promotion to production, not after. System prompts written against clean test data can behave unpredictably when they encounter unexpected characters, mixed languages, or long strings that only appear in live environments. Incorporating a sample of real or representative data into your test suite is a necessary step before sign-off.

    Source: AI agent evaluation: How to test + improve AI agents (Zapier Blog).