White paper: Choosing between the GitHub Copilot and Standard harnesses in Copilot Studio
The Standard harness and GitHub Copilot harness are two authoring and runtime options within Microsoft Copilot Studio. A harness is the operating layer between the model and the agent’s configuration. It determines how the model receives context, uses instructions and tools, interprets results, and moves through a task toward completion. Put simply, the model provides the reasoning capability, while the harness equips and directs it. Both harnesses are built for task-based, multi-step agents that create real business value, but they are suited to different scenarios. The Standard harness supports consistent, reliable execution of bounded business processes, while the GitHub Copilot harness extends these capabilities to longer-running, coordination-heavy, and reasoning-intensive work at a larger scale. This paper explains the key differences, tradeoffs, and scenarios to help you choose which harness is right for your business process. Read the full paper by clicking the PDF attachment below.
Copilot Studio Knowledge Source Limitation When Iterating Over Multiple SharePoint Documents
Hi, I’m looking for clarification on a limitation we’re currently encountering in Copilot Studio that is blocking some of our use case. Example Scenario (Policy Agent) We have a SharePoint document library containing ~100 policy documents. A Copilot Studio agent is configured with this library as a knowledge source. The agent performs well for typical question-answering scenarios where responses can be derived from a subset of documents. For example: “How much annual leave can I take?” correctly returns answers sourced from multiple relevant policies. Issue When the question requires the agent to evaluate all documents individually, the results are incomplete. Example prompt: “Review each policy document and return the review date.” In this scenario: The agent only processes the first ~10 documents. It then stops, without indicating that the response is partial or that a limit has been reached. The remaining documents in the library are not evaluated. During a recent Microsoft-led course, we were advised that this behaviour is expected due to platform limitations. Specifically: While it will reside over all documents to genereate the most suitable response, the agent is not designed to self‑iterate across all items in a large knowledge source for individual document responses. Asking it to “review each document” effectively requires iteration, which is constrained. The suggested workaround was to: Create a trigger-based flow Implement a loop to process the documents in batches We were able to make this approach work, but it feels like a heavy and brittle workaround for what seems like a common enterprise requirement. We’ve Tried Both available SharePoint knowledge source connection methods Allowing sufficient time for indexing and refresh Rephrasing prompts to encourage broader coverage None of these approaches changed the outcome, the agent consistently returns results for only the first subset of documents. Is this behaviour a documented or known limitation of Copilot Studio knowledge sources? Are there recommended design patterns for scenarios that require document-by-document evaluation at scale? Is there a more native or supported approach planned to avoid custom looping logic for this kind of use case? Any guidance or confirmation would be appreciated. Thanks.Power Automate Flows Created Outside Copilot Studio Not Appearing in Tools
Hello everyone, I'm facing an issue with Copilot Studio and would appreciate your advice. Context I have several Power Automate flows that I created directly from: https://make.powerautomate.com My goal is to use these flows as tools within a Copilot Studio agent. All components are in the same Power Platform environment. What I've verified The flows use the "When an agent calls a flow" trigger. The flows end with "Respond to the agent". The flows are saved and published. The agent and flows are added to the same Solution. The solution has been published. I am using the same account and environment for both Power Automate and Copilot Studio. The Issue Flows that are created directly from Copilot Studio appear correctly under: Tools → Add Tool However, flows created from Power Automate (make.powerautomate.com) do not appear in the Tools list, even though they have the same trigger and response configuration. Question Are there additional requirements for a Power Automate flow to be discoverable by Copilot Studio? For example: Does the flow need to be an Agent Flow rather than a standard Cloud Flow? Are there known synchronization or caching issues between Power Automate and Copilot Studio? Is there a specific setting, solution configuration, or publishing step that I may have missed? Any guidance or experience with a similar issue would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!Unanswered Questions on GitHub Copilot Harness in Copilot Studio
We're piloting the GitHub Copilot harness in Copilot Studio (GA August 2026) and several operational and architectural details remain undocumented in the GA FAQ, Microsoft Learn, or licensing guides. Looking for official answers or PM contacts on: Architecture & Execution – When the harness breaks tasks into subtasks, does it use internal sub-agents or only skills/connected agents, what are the exact timeout/retry/max-execution-duration limits for long-running workflows, and are planning/context-retrieval/orchestration internals documented anywhere or is the orchestrator a black box? Model Selection – Can individual skills within one agent use different models or is selection strictly agent-level, how are models chosen internally when multiple skills execute, are any internal models developer-configurable, and what's the roadmap for models being added/retired/deprecated plus the lag between public release and Copilot Studio availability? Cost & Token Optimization – How exactly is the ~45% token reduction achieved, how much control do makers have over context/caching/retrieval/tool calls, what are per-model credit consumption characteristics, which models are most cost-effective for specific workloads, and what's the minimum credit cost for trivial interactions? Memory Management – What are retention periods for session/working/agent memory beyond the documented 28-day user-memory expiry, is true long-term memory supported, and what changed versus earlier implementations? Knowledge Retrieval – Can skills or system instructions influence retrieval strategy/document selection/prioritization/filtering, can planning stages perform conflict/duplicate/version detection before retrieval, and how does the harness decide which sources to search? Apps Feature – What is the "Apps (preview)" capability for, when does it GA, and how does it differ from workflows/skills/adaptive cards/agents? Billing & Credit Sizing – Is there a framework to classify users/agents by expected consumption and size credit allocation per group (citizen vs pro developers), and what's the minimum/typical consumption for simple/medium/heavy interactions? Governance & Admin – Can usage limits be set at user level (not just environment/agent), is there an API/IaC path for large-scale credit assignment, can non-admins view their own consumption/remaining allocation, and is there a self-service request-more-credits dashboard? ALM & Environments – What's the recommended path to move harness agents across Dev/Test/UAT/Prod (Solutions/ALM "setup differs" per parity chart—how?), does GitHub integration replace or complement solution-based deployment, are there recommended AgentOps practices for source control/releases/versioning, and what baseline credits and onboarding model are suggested for citizen developers under usage billing—any enterprise reference implementations?
Discover a community gallery of reusable skills for AI agents
Save this link, it is a gem for your Copilot agents. This community-driven skills gallery brings together dozens of ready-to-use examples that you can download and import into: Agents built with Copilot Studio Copilot Cowork Microsoft Scout As a reminder, a skill is a reusable set of instructions that gives an agent a specific capability. You will find use cases covering document analysis, content creation, document conversion, automation, and data processing. For those of you working on agent development in Copilot Studio, this is an excellent source of inspiration. Beyond downloading existing skills, it is also a great way to discover how other creators structure their skills, organize their instructions, and design reusable capabilities across multiple agents. Skills Gallery: https://microsoft.github.io/cat-agent-skills/All Copilot Studio Workflow Tools Suddenly Returning HTTP 403 Before Execution
Hello Copilot Studio Community, I am experiencing an authorization issue with multiple workflows connected to an agent built using the Copilot Studio new experience and new Workflows experience. These workflows worked successfully for multiple users yesterday. Today, all workflow tools connected to the agent began returning an immediate HTTP 403 authorization error. I did not intentionally change the agent, workflows, environment, or workflow permissions before the issue started. Error message: You don’t have permission to use this tool. You’re signed in, but access to this resource is blocked. Error details: Authorization - 403 Example error information: Status: Failed Error message: Flow returned HTTP 403 Error code: Http403 Inner error code: NotSpecified Tool duration: Approximately 93 milliseconds Configuration: - Copilot Studio new agent experience - Copilot Studio new Workflows experience - Agent and workflows are in the same Power Platform environment - Workflows use the "When an agent calls the workflow" trigger - Each workflow includes a "Respond to the agent" action - Workflows are saved and published - Agent is saved and published Observed behavior: The problem affects several independent workflows, including: - New-request submission - Current-user identity resolution - Approval decisions - Requester justification - Executive decisions - Fulfillment updates For every affected workflow: - The agent fills the workflow inputs correctly. - The tool call fails almost immediately. - No corresponding run appears in the workflow Activity history. - The workflow trigger is never reached. - No workflow actions execute. Because no workflow run is created, the rejection appears to occur before workflow execution, possibly within the Copilot Studio agent-to-workflow authorization or invocation layer. Troubleshooting already completed: - Confirmed that all workflows are published. - Confirmed that the agent is published. - Tested in a completely new conversation. - Removed an affected workflow tool from the agent. - Saved the agent. - Added the same published workflow back to the agent. - Reconfigured and verified the tool inputs. - Republished the agent. - Confirmed that no workflow Activity run is created. - Confirmed that the issue affects multiple workflows rather than one specific workflow. Removing and re-adding the workflow did not resolve the problem. Questions for the community: 1. Is anyone else currently experiencing HTTP 403 errors when Copilot Studio agents invoke workflows? 2. Is this a known issue or regression in the new Workflows experience? 3. Is there an environment-level or tenant-level permission that controls agent-to-workflow invocation? 4. Could a tenant policy, Conditional Access change, service principal, connection reference, or workflow-sharing configuration cause all workflow tools to fail simultaneously? 5. Where can an administrator find detailed authorization logs when the workflow never creates a run? 6. Has anyone found a workaround for this issue? Any guidance or confirmation from others experiencing the same behavior would be appreciated. I can provide screenshots, complete error details, timestamps, and additional configuration information if needed. Thank you.
Designing a Governed RTO Compliance Agent Using Copilot Studio and Databricks Genie
Enterprise AI adoption in HR scenarios comes with a unique challenge: how do you deliver actionable insights without compromising privacy, trust, or policy boundaries? In this blog, I’ll share how we built an RTO (Return‑to‑Office) Compliance Agent using Microsoft Copilot Studio and Databricks Genie, focusing on governance‑first design, controlled data access, and real‑world enterprise constraints. This solution was developed as part of an HRLT proof‑of‑value initiative and is designed to support people managers with clear, aggregated compliance insights, delivered conversationally inside Microsoft Teams. The Problem We Were Solving As hybrid work models mature, organizations need a reliable way to answer questions such as: How compliant is my team with RTO expectations? Are there trends across regions or time periods? Traditional dashboards often fall short because they: Require manual interpretation Expose too much granular data Are difficult to govern at scale Our objective was to create an AI‑powered conversational interface that provides: Only manager‑authorized, aggregated insights Zero visibility into individual‑level behavior Built‑in enforcement of HR and privacy policies Architecture Overview The solution integrates Copilot Studio with Databricks Genie, backed by curated data sources. (Image: High-level Copilot Studio and Databricks Genie architecture) Key Components Copilot Studio – Conversational orchestration, policy enforcement, and Teams deployment Databricks Genie – Governed natural-language interface to curated datasets RokFusion Platform – Trusted HR and badge-swipe data This layered approach ensures governance is applied before data is ever queried. Controlled End-to-End Data Flow The interaction pattern follows a strict, auditable flow: A manager asks a question in Copilot Studio Copilot forwards the request to Genie with instruction constraints Genie executes logic only on curated, approved tables Calculations are performed at team or manager level only Copilot formats and returns compliant responses (text, tables, or charts) At no point are employee IDs, badge events, or individual metrics exposed. Using Genie as a Governance Layer, Not Just a Query Tool One of the most critical decisions was to treat Databricks Genie as a policy‑enforcement layer, not merely a natural‑language SQL generator. (Image: Genie instruction configuration enforcing compliance rules) What We Configured in Genie Synonyms and NL mappings for HR terminology Strict filtering logic for employee categories Population threshold enforcement (minimum count) Explicit rejection of sensitive attributes such as gender, race, religion, or age Prevention of formula or row‑level data exposure This approach ensured that even malformed or risky prompts could not bypass policy constraints. Compliance Scenarios Supported The agent supports multiple business‑aligned interpretations of RTO compliance: Hybrid Compliance Hybrid employees counted only on eligible hybrid days Onsite Compliance Onsite employees counted across standard working days All Employees View Weighted aggregation combining hybrid and onsite logic These scenarios are embedded into the agent’s instruction logic, not dynamically inferred at runtime—ensuring consistency and auditability. Why We Chose Conversational AI Over Dashboards A key insight early on was that managers don’t want spreadsheets—they want answers. Instead of navigating filters and charts, managers can ask: “What was my team’s compliance last week?” “Show me a comparison across regions.” When required, the agent can also render simple visual outputs. (Image: Sample Microsoft Teams output with compliance visualization) Importantly, visuals follow the same governance rules as text responses. Publishing and Validation in Microsoft Teams Once configured, the agent was published directly from Copilot Studio to Microsoft Teams, making adoption frictionless. (Image: Publishing Copilot Studio agent to Microsoft Teams) End‑to‑end testing validated: Authorization boundaries Population rules Safe handling of incomplete or ambiguous queries Key Engineering Learnings Governance must be instruction‑driven Relying on frontend filtering alone is insufficient for HR data. Natural language needs strong guardrails Enterprise AI benefits from being constrained, not free‑form. Aggregation builds trust Managers are more comfortable with insights when they know individual visibility is impossible. Copilot Studio accelerates enterprise delivery Security, deployment, and integration stay within the Microsoft ecosystem. Closing Thoughts This RTO Compliance Agent demonstrates how Copilot Studio and Databricks Genie can be used to build governed, enterprise‑ready AI solutions—especially in sensitive domains like HR. By embedding policy into architecture, instructions, and data access, we were able to deliver: Useful insights Strong privacy guarantees High user trust This pattern is extensible well beyond RTO—opening the door for future HR intelligence use cases built on the same foundation.
