# How to use a Righthand with Sentry

Use Righthand to prepare a Sentry issue triage packet tied to a specific project and release.

By Righthand Team · 2026-10-12

Source: https://www.righthand.ai/blog/how-to-use-righthand-with-sentry

## Quick answer

Use Righthand to prepare a Sentry issue triage packet tied to a specific project and release. Preserve representative events before proposing engineering work.

Start with a reviewable deliverable, keeping Sentry as the accepted home for its records. This guide uses an explicitly approved snapshot or browser read; it does not assume that every provider API action is exposed by your Righthand connection.

## Evidence and access

Sentry documents listing a project's issues through its API. See the [official Sentry reference](https://docs.sentry.io/api/events/list-a-projects-issues/). Provider capabilities and Righthand's available tools are separate checks.

Use the approved project and environment issue export with issue IDs, event samples, release references, timestamps, and the team's review rules. Verify the required tools and owner-approved scope through [Righthand integrations](/integrations); use the supplied packet when a native read is unavailable.

## Define the objects and authority

Include these fields in the working input: organization, project, issue ID, release, first and last seen, event count, representative event. These are the requested review columns, not a promise that every provider endpoint returns them under those exact names.

An issue group is not a verified root cause. Resolving or ignoring issues and shipping a fix need separate engineering authority.

| Responsibility | Owner |
| --- | --- |
| Prepare source scope and access | Account owner |
| Organize evidence and proposed next steps | Righthand |
| Approve consequential changes | the engineering lead |

## Illustrative first-run brief

> Use the owner-provided Sentry snapshot or approved read-only view. Review ten supplied new issues for the current release. Group affected routes and identify missing reproduction evidence. Draft investigation tasks without changing issue status. Run once for the agreed sample, using America/Los_Angeles for the review deadline and preserving source timestamps separately. Return the draft in this conversation by Friday at 3 PM Pacific for the engineering lead to review. Include source references and missing fields. Do not write records, spend money, change permissions, or send external messages. Stop and report an unavailable source rather than substituting another account.

## Expected result and verification

Two events grouped under one issue may need different context. The packet preserves representative examples instead of declaring one cause.

Inspect one event and its release tag against the intended deployment window. Record the source cutoff, applied filters, and items excluded from the sample. The reviewer should be able to follow each consequential finding back to an original object. A well-written summary is not evidence that a proposed action happened. If a later write is authorized, verify its specific result separately before changing the task's status.


### Illustrative input and draft output

These synthetic entries show the requested review, not live account results or a provider field schema.

| Source item | Supplied observation | Draft conclusion |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Issue A | Events from target release | Investigate scoped behavior |
| Issue B | Mixed environments | Separate evidence |
| Issue C | Resolved label only | Recovery unverified |

## Common failure and recovery

Issue counts can change with grouping and filters. Reconcile the project query and event window before claiming a regression trend.

When an issue includes events from multiple releases, separate the evidence by release before proposing a regression conclusion.

## FAQ

### What should the reviewer verify first?

Verify issue identity, environment, release, event window, and affected behavior. Grouped events are useful evidence but do not prove every occurrence has one root cause.

### How should a repeat run be scoped?

Preserve issue IDs, release filters, and observation windows. Review new evidence after a fix and keep customer-path acceptance separate from a resolved issue label.

For connection and permission details, use [Righthand Docs](https://docs.righthand.ai). Review [Pricing](/pricing) alongside any separate provider charges before expanding the workflow.