Session Replay Assistant Prompts for Product Teams

A session replay assistant is most useful when the prompt asks for observable behavior, representative sessions, and a verification path. It is least useful when the prompt asks AI to guess motive, decide priority, or explain a broad metric change without enough evidence.

This guide gives product teams public prompt patterns for AI-assisted replay review. It does not describe Monolytics’ internal Assistant prompts, scoring system, ranking logic, or implementation details.

Last reviewed: July 1, 2026. Replay can show observable behavior and context. It does not prove exact user motive, root cause, frustration level, or business impact by itself.

Prompt structure

Use this structure before asking a replay assistant for help:

PartWhat to includeExample
JourneyPage, route, flow, event, or product stepPricing page, signup form, onboarding setup
Failed outcomeWhat did not happenDid not start trial, did not submit, did not activate
Observable behaviorWhat replay can showDead clicks, loops, hesitation, retries, exits, errors
SegmentWhich sessions should countMobile, paid search, new accounts, trial users
Evidence requestWhat the assistant should returnRepresentative sessions, repeated patterns, comparison questions
Verification ruleWhat the team will check manuallyCompare successful sessions and label confidence

This keeps the prompt grounded in replay evidence.

For a deeper question-framing guide, see product questions to ask your session replay assistant.

Prompt pattern: find failed sessions

Use when the team knows the path and outcome.

Prompt:

Find sessions where [segment] reached [journey] but did not complete [failed outcome]. Return the visible behavior around the failure, representative sessions, and any repeated patterns. Keep the wording behavioral and do not infer motive.

Example:

Find mobile signup sessions from paid search where users started the form but did not submit. Return visible behavior around validation, privacy checks, retries, exits, and representative sessions. Do not infer motive.

Good output:

  • sessions that match the path;
  • repeated visible behavior;
  • representative examples;
  • gaps that need manual review.

Prompt pattern: compare failed and successful sessions

Use when the team may be overreading failed sessions.

Prompt:

Compare [failed session group] with [successful session group] from the same segment. Focus on visible behavior before [decision point]. Return the differences that repeat and the sessions that support them.

Example:

Compare mobile pricing visitors from comparison content who did not start trial with similar visitors who did. Focus on plan comparison, proof checks, FAQ use, CTA interaction, and exits.

This prompt helps separate friction from normal evaluation.

Prompt pattern: inspect a possible UX issue

Use when the assistant surfaced a UX issue candidate.

Prompt:

Review sessions where users show [observable behavior] near [UI element or step]. Return whether the behavior repeats, whether successful sessions show the same behavior, and what evidence is missing before this becomes a UX finding.

Example:

Review sessions where users repeatedly click the plan-details row on mobile pricing. Return whether the behavior repeats, whether successful sessions do the same thing, and what evidence is missing before this becomes a UX finding.

Use how to validate AI-surfaced UX issues before turning the answer into a fix.

Prompt pattern: inspect a possible bug

Use when replay shows failed interactions.

Prompt:

Find sessions with [bug-like symptom] on [route or flow]. Return the visible symptom, environment context, representative sessions, recovery behavior, and whether the pattern is lead, repeated pattern, segmented pattern, supported finding, or unclear.

Example:

Find sessions with repeated taps on the signup submit button where no visible progress happens. Return device context, validation state, representative sessions, recovery behavior, and confidence level.

Use AI bug triage from session replay evidence when the answer needs to become an engineering triage note.

Prompt pattern: ask for confidence, not certainty

Use when a finding might be overclaimed.

Prompt:

Classify this replay finding as lead, repeated pattern, segmented pattern, supported finding, or refuted/unclear. Explain what evidence supports the label, what evidence is missing, and what the next small action should be.

Example:

Classify the finding “pricing visitors are confused by plan limits” using replay evidence only. Explain whether it is a lead, repeated pattern, segmented pattern, supported finding, or unclear. Do not claim motive unless another signal supports it.

Use the session replay evidence confidence matrix for the definitions.

Prompt pattern: find feedback opportunities

Use when replay shows behavior but not reason.

Prompt:

Find sessions where [segment] shows [ambiguous behavior] before [failed outcome]. Return the observable behavior, representative sessions, and one targeted feedback question that could clarify the decision moment.

Example:

Find onboarding sessions where new accounts loop between setup and docs before activation. Return visible behavior, representative sessions, and one targeted feedback question that could clarify whether permissions, effort, or unclear next steps are the issue.

The assistant should not decide the reason. It should help the team ask a better follow-up question.

Prompt pattern: summarize without overclaiming

Use when stakeholders need a short note.

Prompt:

Summarize the observed behavior in this review set. Include the product question, segment, repeated behavior, representative sessions, confidence level, evidence limit, and next small action. Do not infer exact user motive, root cause, or business impact.

Example output format:

FieldFill it in
Product questionWhat decision are we trying to make?
SegmentWhich sessions were reviewed?
Observed behaviorWhat happened in replay?
Representative sessionsWhich sessions support the pattern?
ConfidenceLead, repeated pattern, segmented pattern, supported finding, unclear
LimitWhat does the evidence not prove?
Next actionFix, instrument, survey, test, monitor, or postpone

Use when not to trust AI session summaries when the summary sounds stronger than the evidence.

Prompts to avoid

Avoid prompts that ask the assistant to decide:

  • “Why is conversion down?”
  • “What do users hate?”
  • “What should we build next?”
  • “Is our pricing too expensive?”
  • “What is the root cause?”
  • “How much revenue are we losing?”
  • “Which feature should we remove?”

Rewrite them into observable replay questions:

AvoidRewrite
Why is conversion down?Find sessions where pricing visitors compare plans but do not start trial
What do users hate?Find sessions with repeated retries, dead clicks, loops, or exits near the decision point
What should we build next?Find repeated sessions where users attempt an unsupported action
Is pricing too expensive?Find sessions where visitors inspect plan limits, proof, and FAQs before leaving
What is the root cause?Return visible behavior and supporting signals needed before root-cause claims

The rewrite does not make the assistant less useful. It makes the answer more reviewable.

How Monolytics fits

Use Monolytics Assistant session search for repeated patterns across many sessions. Use Monolytics Records when the team already knows the route, event, source, or failed path.

Then use the AI session replay analysis workflow to review the answer, the AI session replay analysis checklist as the gate before action, and the session replay evidence review template to document the final finding.

For the public product path, use See every bug to understand the AI-assisted replay workflow and Monolytics pricing when the team needs more replay volume, AI session search, surveys, or retention.

Sources used