Overview

Launching an agent is only the beginning. Without systematic observation, you cannot tell whether users are getting answers they trust, whether integrations are working correctly, or whether the agent's tone matches what you intended.

Silent failures are the most dangerous kind: a user asks a question, receives a confident but incorrect answer, and leaves without providing any feedback. Unless you review conversations and track the feedback users do leave, those failures accumulate invisibly. Over time they erode trust in the agent and in the team behind it.

qlar gives you three dedicated observation surfaces, each designed for a different type of question:

SurfaceWhereBest for
DashboardHomeVolume, trend, function-tool adoption
Feedback InsightInsight → FeedbackUser satisfaction, failure pattern detection
Monitoring LogsMonitoringTechnical errors, integration debugging, audit trail

Use all three together to build a complete picture of how your agent behaves in production.


The Three Observation Surfaces

Dashboard

The Dashboard answers the question: Is my agent being used, and is usage growing?

Open it every morning to catch overnight anomalies. Five metric cards give you an immediate health snapshot, and the conversation chart lets you drill into any time bucket to read the individual threads. The Function Tools pie chart reveals which tools the AI is actually invoking — and which it is ignoring.

Go here when: you want to check overall activity, spot traffic anomalies, or verify that function tools are being used.

→ Read the Dashboard


Feedback Insight

The Feedback page answers the question: Are users satisfied with the answers they are receiving?

It surfaces the explicit ratings users leave (👍 / 👎) and lets you drill into every individual negative rating to read the user's reason and the full conversation. A negative rate that climbs week over week is the single most reliable early warning that something in the agent has changed or drifted.

Go here when: you want to measure user satisfaction, identify recurring complaint patterns, or track whether a configuration change improved quality.

→ Analyse User Feedback


Monitoring Logs

The Monitoring page answers the question: What exactly happened, and why?

It exposes the raw log stream from the agent's backend services, filtered by source (Published or Draft), severity, and time window. Every log row links to the conversation it belongs to and opens a structured context panel with the full request payload and error detail from any external API call.

Go here when: you need to diagnose a specific error, validate that a configuration change is working in Draft before publishing, or build an audit trail after an incident.

→ Investigate with Monitoring Logs


Build a Monitoring Cadence

Individual observations are useful; a consistent rhythm makes them powerful. The table below is a starting point — adjust frequency and focus to match your deployment scale and user base.

FrequencyWhat to checkGoal
DailyDashboard 24h view · Warning and Error logsCatch silent failures and traffic anomalies before they accumulate
WeeklyDashboard 30d view · Feedback trend · Function-tool pie chart · Export PDFMeasure week-over-week quality trend and prepare stakeholder update
After a config changeDashboard 72h view · Draft logs before publishing · Feedback score post-publishConfirm the change had the intended effect and did not introduce regressions
MonthlyDashboard 12m view · Avg Messages per Conversation trend · Negative feedback reasonsIdentify long-term drift and plan the next iteration of the agent
After an incidentMonitoring logs filtered to incident window · View Context on each ErrorRoot-cause analysis and documentation of corrective action

Tip: Export the Dashboard as PDF before and after each significant configuration change. Keeping these snapshots lets you demonstrate improvement to stakeholders with concrete data rather than anecdote.


Close the Improvement Loop

Observation has no value unless it drives action. Use the framework below to move from what you see in qlar to what you change in your agent.

Observe → Diagnose → Act

What you observeLikely diagnosisWhere to act in qlar
Negative feedback rate above 20 %Agent tone, scope, or accuracy is not meeting user expectationsRevise Behavior (Mission, Personality, Interaction)
Avg Messages / Conversation rising over several weeksAgent is not resolving requests in a single reply; users are rephrasing or following up repeatedlyImprove Knowledge resources and tighten Mission scope
A specific function tool rarely appears in the pie chartAI model is not recognising when the tool is relevantRewrite the tool's Name and Description in Custom API settings
Error logs spiking after a knowledge uploadDocument parsing or chunking issue with the new resourceCheck the resource status in Knowledge → Resources
Traffic drops sharply on a specific channelMessenger channel disconnected or token expiredVerify connection in Channels → Messenger settings
Users citing "wrong information" in negative feedback reasonsKnowledge base is outdated or the source document has changedUpdate or re-upload the relevant resource
Critical log from a specific serviceInfrastructure-level failure outside your configurationExport log details and escalate to support

The Iteration Cycle

Every agent improves through iteration. A practical cadence looks like this:

  1. Observe — Review Dashboard, Feedback, and Logs on the schedule above.
  2. Diagnose — Identify the one or two issues with the highest impact on user satisfaction.
  3. Hypothesise — Form a specific change: "If I add a clearer instruction about response length to Interaction, the 'too long' feedback reason should decrease."
  4. Act — Make the change in Draft mode.
  5. Validate — Use Monitoring logs filtered to Draft Agent to confirm no new errors. Test manually in the preview panel.
  6. Publish — Deploy the Draft to Published.
  7. Measure — Check Feedback trend and Dashboard metrics over the next 72 hours to 30 days depending on traffic volume.
  8. Repeat — Return to step 1.

Agents that are monitored and iterated regularly consistently outperform those that are deployed once and left unchanged.