Fin Product Area

We have a macro that lists the chat hours, it would be nice to have tags in the macro that go by the inbound chatters timezone rather than the static hours that are posted for the timezone in the chat. It would reduce friction in that we wouldn’t have to edit the macro output before sending each time based on where the chatter is located ex: “Our chat hours are 7am - 5pm CST “      “Our chat hours are {(7am - 5pm)CST}”      “Our chat hours are {(time1- time2)Timezone}”all of those could be different tags of a sort I think. CST being the base timezone for the tag, then the listed times could be based on the input times and output different based on the chatter. This would also be good for any Fin AI outputs.

Duplicate options in Reusable WFsWe are trying to duplicate a RWF with de messenger option and its not available!!! :( If we want one now, have to make it from scratch instead of cloning it. Could you add that option on reusable ones? thanksYuli

ProblemAgents can currently close tickets even when they’re not assigned to a team. This makes it easy to close conversations prematurely or without proper ownership, which impacts reporting, accountability, and overall support quality. Proposed SolutionAdd an option to prevent agents from closing a ticket unless it is assigned to a team.Optionally, this could be configurable per workspace or role. Value / Benefit  Ensures every ticket has clear ownership before being closed Improves data quality for reporting and analytics Reduces accidental or premature closures Encourages better workflow discipline across support teams  Use CaseIn larger or distributed support teams, tickets often move between queues. Requiring team assignment before closure ensures the right team is accountable and that nothing slips through the cracks.

Hi Team,Coming from tools like n8n, the Intercom workflow canvas feels very "stiff". I get that the grid keeps things aligned, but it actually makes organizing complex shops harder than it needs to be.The Problem: Right now, you can’t manually group nodes or add much whitespace. This forces everything into long horizontal chains that are hard to read at a glance. To keep my screen clean, I’m forced to make dozens of Reusable Workflows just to avoid a messy canvas.The Solution: We need a "middle ground". Keep the snap-to-grid so things stay professional, but let us move nodes further apart or group them vertically.Why this helps:Faster QA: You can physically separate "Sales" paths from "Payment" paths to see how the logic flows.Easier Training: It’s easier to spot where a Handover is failing if the nodes aren't all bunched together.Better Organization: Solo managers can organize their "brainstorming" nodes away from their "live" nodes.If we can organize our logic visually, we can build

Today, Intercom auto replies (Messenger and email) only support static text or expected reply times based on historical data (e.g. 7-day median first response time). There’s currently no way to adjust these messages based on real-time backlog or queue volume.Feature request:Allow auto replies to use dynamic variables tied to live operational data—specifically backlog size or queue depth—to communicate a more accurate estimated response time.Example use case:If backlog is low → “We typically reply within ~1 hour.”If backlog is high → “We’re experiencing higher volume and expect to reply within ~24 hours.”Why this matters: Sets clearer expectations during traffic spikes Reduces follow-up messages like “Are you there?” Improves customer trust and transparency Helps teams avoid manually updating auto replies during busy periods Suggested implementation ideas (flexible): Variables such as {{estimated_reply_time}} driven by backlog thresholds Rules like “If open conversations > X,

I want to be able to set the redetect on closure for Fin and for teammates separately. For example, I want to be able to set up an attribute to be redetected upon Fin closure but not teammate closure. The reasoning here is that we want to rely on Fin to set the attribute when a human is not involved, but when a human is involved, we want to trust the human. 

Hello Intercom Community!I’ve been building complex automated shops using Fin and Workflows, and I’ve noticed a significant limitation in the current "Let Fin handle" node. Once a user is inside the Fin flow, it often feels like a "dead end" for automation. Currently, Fin can only resolve the chat or escalate to a teammate.The Problem: There is currently no built-in way for Fin to guide users back to previous paths or nodes within the same conversation flow once the AI is active. For example, if a user finishes browsing product details with Fin but wants to go back to the main menu buttons to start a different process, they are stuck unless a human intervenes.The Proposed Feature: "Automation Loop-Back" I would love to see an option within Fin's guidance or node settings that allows for a "Start Over" or "Go Back" trigger.Key Functionality: A specific command in Fin's guidance (e.g., "If the user wants to start over, hand back to [Node Name]") that re-triggers a previous part of the wo

Our database is not linked to Intercom and we cannot upload a list of users because we deal with PHI so need to limit contact information to those we correspond with, so ALL contacts are leads. We have many, many duplicate leads and need to be able to merge them so all of their conversations (phone, emails, tickets, etc) are together. 

The problem is two fold, this ticket focuses on the second point below:Intercom only allows the merge of duplicate leads into users (which will get it’s own ticket) Currently a lead is only changed to a user if the system detects an account has been created, or if we import a list of users. We do not currently have our database linked to Intercom and deal with PHI so it is important we keep data sharing to as needed, so importing a full list isn’t ideal.We should be able to manually change leads to users so that we can then merge duplicate leads into the matching user. 

 Very often, mostly, we need to check report for the previous month, and so every time need manually select it from the date rangePlease, add Past month option to the date range in drop down menu for reports 

It would be great to see some reporting improvements for articles. Article view by language. We are now supporting 7 additional languages in our Knowledge Base. It would be helpful to measure the success of these articles by seeing how many users are viewing the articles in French or Italian, etc.  Article views by customer. Perhaps this exists already but I can’t find a way to see the number of views by customers to see if an article is being utilized to help customers that are writing in with specific problems. 

Would be great to be able to color code inbox by statuses, so you can quickly view an inbox and see the status of all items.

As can propose Zendesk, it would be more efficient and easier to organize the macros, if we were able to create a single macro, for different languages. 

I want to be able to quickly snooze conversations as I respond, but 1 day is too short, and a week too long. I would like to be able to set up for my user profile so that I can choose my default snooze times available in the send and snooze menu. 

Please can some improvements be made to the Help Centre’s search functionality? Currently it isn’t really up to industry standard and is providing a poor user experience• It doesn’t pick on synonyms/different terminology - so without keyword-stuffing (which is bad practice and poor UX), content gets missed. Already raised by someone else here, here and here a year ago and still an issue - especially when it comes to typos, Fin can detect these so the HC should be able to as well. Some typos appear to be accounted for but not all - we should be able to customise this.• Similarly, if we have a standardised/approved way of spelling/styling a term, this is the only one we use within our content for consistency - however users might spell it differently. Their spelling is valid (and not a typo necessarily) but doesn’t match our brand-approved spelling, and so articles don’t surface for them. Eg. “multisite”, “multi-site”, “multi site” are all grammatically appropriate, but we only use the h