> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://relevanceai-docs-tsp-1321.mintlify.site/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Pipeline forecasting and hygiene

> Spot stalled deals, missing fields, and at-risk forecast slippage before pipeline review.

The Monday pipeline review depends on data that's only as fresh as the rep updated it on Friday — which is to say, not very. A pipeline Agent reads the whole pipeline state, flags what's stalled, what's missing, what's likely to slip, and surfaces the gaps so the review actually starts with reality.

## When this pays off

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Stale pipeline" icon="hourglass">
    Half the deals in pipeline haven't been touched in 30 days; reps update only when forced.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Forecast accuracy poor" icon="chart-line-down">
    Commit vs. close-rate gap grows quarter over quarter — leadership stops trusting the forecast.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Pipeline review is data hunting" icon="binoculars">
    The first 20 minutes of every pipeline review is reps explaining missing data.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Slipping deals caught late" icon="alarm-clock">
    Deals slip the week before the quarter ends — when it's too late to do anything.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>

## The shape of this use case

A pipeline Agent takes a pipeline snapshot and returns a structured analysis with flags.

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Inputs" icon="arrow-right-to-bracket">
    Pipeline state (deals, stages, dates, amounts), historical close-rate benchmarks, your forecast definitions.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Sources" icon="globe">
    CRM, prior quarter close data, deal activity logs, your sales methodology / MEDDICC framework.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Output" icon="file-lines">
    A pipeline brief — stalled deals, missing critical fields, slippage risk per deal, forecast vs. commit gap with reasoning.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Delivery" icon="paper-plane">
    Posted to [Slack](/integrations/popular-integrations/slack) ahead of pipeline review, written to a [Notion](/integrations/popular-integrations/notion) ops doc, surfaced as deal-level alerts to AEs.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>

## Where to start

Two ways in, depending on whether you want something running today or built to your exact spec.

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Clone a pre-built Agent" icon="copy">
    Open the **[Deal Health Analyst](https://marketplace.relevanceai.com/listing/5ecd3c3f-73ba-4f08-877c-bb68dde05387)**. More in the [Marketplace](/get-started/marketplace/introduction).
  </Card>

  <Card title="Build your own" icon="hammer">
    Start from scratch in the [builder](/build/introduction), or by describing it in Claude Code or Cursor with [Programmatic GTM](/get-started/core-concepts/programmatic-gtm).
  </Card>
</CardGroup>

Either way, these are prompts your team can use on day one:

* *"What deals look at-risk for Q3? Pull stalled deals, missing close dates, and weak MEDDICC scores."*
* *"Compare this week's commit vs. last quarter's commit-vs-close at the same point in the cycle — are we tracking?"*
* *"Which 10 deals should the team focus on this week to hit number?"*

## Where to take it

Once it's running, deepen it in three moves:

<CardGroup cols={3}>
  <Card title="Give it a playbook" icon="book">
    Shape it with a [prompt](/build/agents/build-your-agent/prompt), your methodology in [Knowledge](/build/knowledge/create-knowledge), and [Tools](/build/agents/build-your-agent/tools) to query the CRM.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Automate it on signals" icon="bolt">
    Wrap it in a [workflow](/build/workforces/create-a-workforce) that fires on a [trigger](/build/agents/build-your-agent/triggers).
  </Card>

  <Card title="Let it improve" icon="arrows-rotate">
    Feed back which at-risk signals predicted slippage into the Agent's [evals](/build/agents/build-your-agent/evals) so flagging sharpens.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>

## Common pitfalls

<AccordionGroup>
  <Accordion title="Noise overwhelms signal" icon="bell-slash">
    If the Agent flags every deal as "at risk", the team stops reading. Tighten criteria to what actually predicts slippage.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="No outcome feedback" icon="arrows-rotate">
    Without piping won/lost / slipped outcomes back to the Agent's evals, the criteria can't improve. Pipe deal outcomes to evaluations.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Missing the qualitative" icon="comment">
    Pure field-based analysis misses what AEs hear on calls. Have the Agent read recent activity notes and pick up sentiment signals.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Auto-changing CRM fields" icon="pen">
    Letting the Agent overwrite stage or amount fields without rep review breaks trust and reporting. Surface recommendations; the rep changes the field.
  </Accordion>
</AccordionGroup>