My followup-radar AI agent reported 671 emails in one Gmail inbox and 290 in a Zoho inbox, both within the last 45 days. This log entry, modified 7.5 hours ago, confirms the agent is actively monitoring multiple email providers and retrieving data. While 55193 restarts on algom-stream over 42 days highlight a different kind of operational challenge, followup-radar consistently shows successful email scanning.
This agent is critical for ensuring no inbound communication is missed, especially when dealing with a high volume of interactions. The ability to pull specific counts from different providers directly into logs provides a clear, auditable trail of its activity.
The followup-radar Agent's Role
The followup-radar agent is designed to scan designated email inboxes for new messages. Its primary function is to act as an early warning system, ensuring that critical communications, especially those requiring a human response, are not overlooked. This is distinct from reply-radar, which focuses on matching replies to existing CRM deals. The followup-radar is about raw inbox visibility.
The log entry imap.gmail.com: 671 inbox / 4 sent (last 45d) and imap.zoho.com: 290 inbox / 28 sent (last 45d) provides a snapshot of its recent activity. These numbers confirm that the agent successfully connected to both imap.gmail.com and imap.zoho.com, queried the inboxes, and reported the message counts. The "last 45d" qualifier indicates the timeframe of the scan, ensuring that the reported numbers are relevant to recent activity.
Operational Health and Data Retrieval
The consistent logging of email counts from followup-radar.log demonstrates its operational health. Unlike processes like cto-aipa with 167 restarts over 4 days, or algom-stream with its 55193 restarts over 42 days, followup-radar shows no restart count in the pm2 jlist output, indicating a stable process. Its log entries are regular and contain concrete data points.
The agent's ability to differentiate between "inbox" and "sent" messages (e.g., 671 inbox / 4 sent) is crucial. It provides a more nuanced understanding of email activity than a simple total count. This distinction helps in identifying potential bottlenecks or areas where follow-up might be needed, especially if the "sent" count is unexpectedly low compared to the "inbox" volume.
Integration with Other Agents
While followup-radar focuses on raw email monitoring, its output informs other parts of my AI agent ecosystem. For instance, reply-radar (which scanned 157 emails in its latest run, with 0 replies matched) would then process these emails for specific reply patterns against HubSpot deals. The apply-queue.log shows successful Telegram notifications, indicating that critical events, potentially triggered by followup-radar's findings, are being communicated.
The concierge-selftest.log shows ✅ PASS — 4 checks, 3699ms to first card, confirming that the system for producing Telegram cards is functional and suppressing duplicates. This ensures that if followup-radar identifies an email requiring immediate attention, a notification can be generated efficiently without spamming.
The Broader Monitoring Landscape
My entire system runs with 8 processes online, supervised by PM2. While followup-radar shows stability, other agents present different challenges. algom-stream's 55193 restarts over 42 days are a known issue, which I've addressed in previous analyses. cto-aipa has 167 restarts over 4 days, indicating a different kind of instability.
The github-token-watch.log shows OK: 282 days left for my GitHub token, ensuring that API access for agents like serpapi-jobs (which has 25 restarts over 7 days) remains uninterrupted. This comprehensive monitoring, from API tokens to email inboxes, is essential for maintaining a robust, self-healing AI agent infrastructure.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How does followup-radar handle different email providers?
A: The agent logs show successful connections and data retrieval from both imap.gmail.com and imap.zoho.com, indicating it is configured to interact with multiple IMAP servers. The specific implementation uses standard IMAP protocols.
Q: What is the typical latency for followup-radar to scan an inbox?
A: The logs show the latest outcome was modified 7.5 hours ago, indicating a scan occurred within that timeframe. I do not have a precise measurement for the scan duration itself, only the timestamp of the last log entry.
Q: Does followup-radar integrate directly with my CRM?
A: followup-radar primarily focuses on raw email monitoring and counting. Its output can inform other agents, like reply-radar, which then handles CRM matching. The followup-radar itself does not directly update HubSpot deals.
Q: What happens if followup-radar encounters an error connecting to an email server?
A: The current logs for followup-radar do not show any connection errors; they consistently report successful counts. If an error were to occur, it would be logged in followup-radar.log, similar to how reply-radar logs "errors 0".