Why this matters
A stack can show where code failed; a replay can show visible interaction around the failure. Neither proves root cause by itself. Replays are also high-risk customer data and should be inspected only for a specific authorized purpose.
Agentry can locate recent recordings for an authorized distinct_id and return
snapshot data. Snapshot types and timestamps are rrweb data—not a natural-
language narrative. Meaningful interpretation requires an actual replay renderer
or another tool that can faithfully reconstruct the relevant segment.
What you get
- One recording selected by exact identity and time bounds
- A minimal rendered segment around the reported outcome
- Visible observations separated from network, case, and code evidence
- A diagnosis hypothesis and next test, not an automatic root-cause claim
Walk through it
Review the consented replay for the checkout problem reported at 14:20 UTC.
I will confirm the authorized identity and policy, locate the nearest recording, and render only the relevant segment.
GET /v1/projects/:project_id/users/:distinct_id/summary
GET /v1/projects/:project_id/session-replays?distinct_id=:distinct_id&date_from=:rfc3339&date_to=:rfc3339
GET /v1/projects/:project_id/session-replays/:replay_id/snapshots
Fetch the current OpenAPI schema for exact query parameters and response fields. Do not copy an email address directly into documentation or logs; URL-encode the authorized project identity at call time.
Render the bounded snapshot interval with a faithful rrweb-compatible viewer.
Record only observable facts such as “the user selected the submit control and
the page displayed an error state.” A raw snapshot with type: 3 does not prove
which element was clicked or what a form contained.
If a real case ID or fingerprint is available, inspect it separately:
GET /v1/cases/:case_id
Correlate by time, session/release identifiers, and observed evidence. A nearby case is not automatically caused by the visible interaction.
The output
Replay review — <replay id> — <bounded interval>
Authorization and privacy
- purpose, consent/redaction policy, reviewer
Visible observations
- <rendered fact with timestamp>
Separate technical evidence
- <case/network/deploy fact from its own source>
Hypothesis
- <possible explanation, explicitly labelled>
Next verification
- <reproduction, code inspection, or additional telemetry>
Setting it up
Configure replay in an authenticated interactive owner session using the current OpenAPI schema. Load the required browser recorder only after consent, sampling, and redaction decisions are implemented. Mask inputs by default and exclude authentication, payment, health, secret, and other sensitive surfaces.
Use stable pseudonymous identities and session IDs across the relevant product events. Replays do not replace structured success/failure events or runtime error capture.
Variations
- “Inspect only the 90 seconds around the reported failure.”
- “Compare visible behavior with the selected real case without claiming causality.”
- “Explain why this replay is not safe or sufficient to inspect.”
- “Prepare a minimal reproduction checklist from verified observations.”