Copilot Tasks: Microsoft’s autonomous scheduled AI to-do manager

  • Thread Author
Microsoft’s latest Copilot iteration aims to stop asking what you want and start doing it for you: Copilot Tasks promises a natural‑language, scheduled, and background-capable to‑do list that autonomously plans, executes, and reports back—while still asking for permission before money or messages change hands. ]

Background​

Microsoft has been moving Copilot beyond a chat interface into an “agentic” platform for more than a year. The company introduced early forms of action-taking with features such as Copilot Actions and an agent framework in Copilot Studio that let copilots operate across apps, make multi‑step web interactions, and run scheduled workflows in preview channels. These earlier building blocks are the immediate technidecessors to what Microsoft is calling Copilot Tasks.
At the same time, the industry has seen multiple vendors add scheduled and background agents—GitHub and GitHub Copilot’s coding agents, Anthropic’s Claude Cowork scheduled tasks, and other agent panels show the same trend: AI that runs when you aren’t watching and returns drafts, summaries, or completed artifacts for review. Copilot Tasks arrives into that broader movement toward asynchronous, delegated AI work. (github.blog

What Copilot Tasks claims to be​

Microsoft’s public messaging, and early reporting from outlets covering preview builds, sketch a feature set organized around three promises:
  • A natural‑language "tell it once" workflow: describe goals in plain English and Copilot generates a plan, gathers context, and executes steps.
  • Long‑running, scheduled and recurring tasks: Tasks can run once, or on schedules (daily, weekly, etc.) and report back, so you can move without manual follow‑up.
  • Permissioned automation: the system will ask for consent before taking meaningful actions—especially where money, bookings, or outbound messages are involved—and expose status so users can pause or cancel. This is positioned as a safety and UX guardrail.
Those three high‑level pillars are what Microsoft and early testers eguage intent, background execution, and explicit consent for critical actions.

Examples Microsoft (and reporters) highlight​

  • Recurring inbox triage: surface urgent messages nightly, draft replies, unsubscribe from garbage mail.
  • Real‑estate monitoring: scan listings weekly, book showings when appropriate, assemble briefings.
  • Document workflows: turn a syllabus into a study plan with practice tests and focus blocks, or convert mixed email attachments into a polished deck with charts.
  • Logistics and shopping: auto‑monitor hotel rates and rebook on price drops, reserve rides tied to flight times, find and schedule local services.
These real‑world scenarios illustrate the ambition: Copilot Tasks isn’t just a smarter checklist, it’s a delegated assistant designed to continuously operate on behalf of a user across mail, calendar, browser, and files—subject to permission gates.

How Copilot Tasks fits with (and differs from) existing Copilot capabilities​

From chat to “do”​

Copilot started as a chat-first assistant—answering, summarizing, drafting. Subsequent features like Copilot Actions extended that to taking concrete steps on web pages under user permission, while Copilot Studio and agent primitives allowed makers to compose multi‑step agents. Copilot Tasks appears to stitch these pieces together into a single, user‑facing task manager that runs planned workflows on a schedule or on demand. Think of it as the UI and orchestration layer that manages multiple agentic backends.

Key technical distinctions reporters observe​

  • Visibility and scheduling: Tasks are designed to be long‑running and schedulable—this is explicit scheduling rather than one-off Actions executed during an active session.
  • Multi‑app orchestration: unlike simple in‑chat automations, Tasks claim the ability to use a browser and interact across apps and connectors to get work done. Early coverage calls this “background computer and browser use.” Treat that claim cautiously (see Risks).
  • Consent model: Microsoft frames Tasks as “you’re in control”—the system requests sign‑offs for significant commitments. That echoes prior language used for Copilot Actions but places consent into the scheduled/automated context.
Overall, Copilot Tasks is presented as the next step from visible, interactive Actions to asynchronous delegation—an important product shift in how end users will rely on AI for repeatable workflows.

What’s technically plausible today — and what remains unclear​

Microsoft’s agent strategy has matured: Copilot can already run research and analysis agents (Researcher, Analyst), and GitHub’s Copilot coding agents demonstrate safe, sandboxed background work that returns artifacts (draft PRs, reports) for human review. That technical lineage makes Copilot Tasks feasible: multi‑step plans, scheduled triggers, and model orchestration are all in active use.
That said, several implementation details remain unverified in public reporting:
  • The claim that Tasks uses “its own computer and browser” to operate in the background is plausible (agents running in cloud sandboxes or orchestrated browser instances are common) but the exact runtime, isolation boundary, and whether actions are local or cloud‑hosted are not publicly documented. Treat such statements as vendor messaging that requires technical validation.
  • Billing and third‑party interaction: the model for authorizing purchases, connecting payment methods, or interacting with partner sites is not fully spelled out in public previews. Microsoft says consent is required for spending or sending messages, but the practicalo‑step approvals, admin policies, spend caps) are not broadly documented yet.
In short: the capabilities being shown are consistent with what Microsoft already ships in agent primitives; the difference is orchestration and scheduling. The precise security model, runtime boundaries, and enterprise controls will determine whether that promise is comfortable for everyday users and IT teams.

Strengths and potential user benefits​

  • Massive friction reduction. If Tasks reliably aggregates calendar, mail, files, and browsing state to execute multi‑step operations, users can move from “idea” to “result” with far fewer clicks and manual follow‑ups. This is the productivity win Microsoft pitches.
  • Recurring automation for personal workflows. The ability to set repeat rules—daily inbox triage, weekly marketplace scans—can surface opportunities users would otherwise miss and free up time for higher‑value work.
  • Consolidated orchestration. Bringing research, document generation, bookings, and monitoring into one task manager reduces tool fragmentation and contextual switching. That’s an immediate UX benefit if permissions and transparency are solid.
  • Human oversight built in. Microsoft emphasizes consent and review for meaningful actions—if implemented well, that helps reduce accidental spend or unwanted outbound communication while preserving delegated automation.

Risks, uncertainties, and what IT should worry about​

No new agent product is purely upside. Copilot Tasks raises known and novel risks that organizations and users should evaluate.

1) Data exposure and scope control​

Copilot’s value comes from deep access to email, files, and calendar—but that same access multiplies risk. Recent operational incidents and advisories around Copilot’s data handling show how retrieval pipelines and policy enforcement can have bugs; enterprises must treat any agent that actively reads mail or documents as a potential compliance surface. Administrators will want logging, scoping, and the ability to block Tasks from privileged mailboxes.

2) Prompt injection and malicious inputs​

Agentic systems that browse and click can be targeted by prompt injection or adversarial web content that attempts to alter the agent’s plan or exfiltrate data. The research community has demonstrated real exploits against assistant pipelines; attackers will target long‑running Tasks because they provide more time and a broader attack surface. Robust input filtering, provenance checks, and content‑handling policies are essential.

3) Unintended financial commitments and account abuse​

Even with consent gates, an automated Task that negotiates or books services can lead to mistakes—double bookings, unwanted recurring charges, or fraudulent interactions if credentials are compromised. Enterprises and consumers alike should insist on explicit, auditable approval flows and per‑task spend limits.

4) Over‑automation and loss of situational context​

Automating decisions that require nuanced judgment (legal responses, HR actions) risks stale or inappropriate outcomes. Copilot Tasks may be excellent at routine operational tasks but poor at ethical or context-sensitive choices. Microsoft’s consent language mitigates this, but it’s not a substitute for human judgment in sensitive domains.

5) Privacy and regulatory exposure​

Different geographies and industries have constraints on automated processing of personal data. Running scheduled tasks that index mail or scan documents might trigger privacy obligations or sectoral restrictions. Organizations must map Tasks to existing data governance, DLP, and retention rules before broad deployment.

How enterprises and power users should evaluate Copilot Tasks​

If you run a pilot or consider roll‑out, treat Copilot Tasks as you would any automation platform:
  • Inventory: identify which mailboxes, service accounts, and connectors the feature needs access to.
  • Scope and least privilege: grant the minimum access for the shortest time. Use dedicated service accounts where possible.
  • Audit and logging: require detailed logs for every task run, including actions proposed, approvals given, and external requests made.
  • Approval workflows: enforce multi‑factor or multi‑actor approval for any task that spends money, signs contracts, or sends external communications.
  • Test harness: run tasks in a read‑only mode first and validate outputs before enabling full action.
  • Incident playbook: define rollback and remediation steps for tasks that behave unexpectedly.
These are pragmatic controls that mirror Microsoft’s own management tooling for Copilot and agent governance—Copilot Control System and admin controls were announced as part of the broader Copilot agent roadmap. Enterprises should insist that a Tasks roll‑out fits into that governance model.

Practical tips for everyday users​

  • Start small: use Tasks for clearly defined, low‑risk automations—calendar scheduling, price monitoring, or draft generation—before handing over booking or payment authority.
  • Keep notifications on: ensure you receive a clear summary of what a Task did and what it proposes to do next so you don’t lose visibility into recurring automations.
  • Review connected services: disconnect unnecessary connectors (personal email, payment methods) until you trust the Task’s outputs and approval prompts.

Where Copilot Tasks matters most — and where it won’t​

Copilot Tasks will be most immediately valuable for repetitive, signal‑rich workflows where the actions are well understood: monitoring, compilation, routine inbox triage, andgeneration. These are high ROI because they’re predictable and easy to validate.
It’s less likely to replace human judgment in high‑stakes domains: legal negotiations, compliance escalations, or sensitive HR decisions. In those cases, a human‑in‑the‑loop model will remain essential—and Microsoft’s consent mechanisms reflect that reality.

The competitive and industry context​

Copilot Tasks is not happening in isolation. GitHub’s agent panels and Codex‑style coding agents already show how background AI can produce drafts and artifacts that humans then curate. Anthropic’s Cowork added scheduled tasks and workspace automation, pointing to a common pattern across product teams: scheduled agentic automation is the next battleground for productivity. Microsoft’s vast footprint across Windows, Office, Edge, and Azure gives it an integration advantage—if it can execute Tasks with enterprise-grade governance and consumer safety.
At the model and infrastructure level, Microsoft’s integration of newer, multi‑model routing and higher‑reasoning backends (including recent model upgrades across Copilot surfaces) provides the compute and model variety needed to run diverse Tasks—from quick retrievals to heavier analysis jobs—efficiently. That technical versatility is an enabler, but it also complicates governance: model/subsystem selection should be visible to admins.

Final assessment and what to watch next​

Copilot Tasks marks a logical and consequential next step in the evolution of productivity AI: moving from reactive chat to scheduled, delegated work. Its promise is real—fewer clicks, more automation, and a consolidated place to manage ongoing digital housekeeping and monitoring. Early reporting and internal previews align with Microsoft’s broader agent strategy, and comparable features from other vendors validate the use case.
But the feature’s success depends on three non‑technical factors as much as technical capability: transparent and auditable consent flows, rigorous data governance to prevent accidental exposure, and robust defenses against prompt injection and adversarial web content. Absent those, Tasks will be a productivity promise with material enterprise and consumer risks. Administrators and privacy teams should treat early access as a security and compliance pilot, not a fait accompli.
What to watch in the coming weeks and months:
  • How Microsoft documents the Tasks runtime (local vs. cloud sandbox) and the isolation model.
  • What explicit admin controls, audit logs, and spend/approval policies appear in the Copilot Control System.
  • Real‑world user reports from the research preview on reliability, correctness, and accidental behaviors.
If Microsoft delivers the orchestration, visibility, and governance it promises, Copilot Tasks could be the first widely deployed example of asynchronous personal AI assistance—a genuinely practical “assistant that does itself.” If not, it will still have advanced the conversation about agentic automation and forced the industry to confront the governance questions it leaves behind.
Conclusion
Copilot Tasks is an ambitious step from suggestion to execution: a scheduled, background‑capable to‑do manager that combines natural‑language intent with cross‑app action. Early coverage and internal previews show strong potential, but the feature’s practical value will be decided by its safety nets—consent UX, DLP and governance integration, and robust protections against adversarial inputs. For IT leaders, the sensible path is cautious experimentation with strict scoping and auditing; for consumers, start small and keep control over connected accounts. The next few weeks of preview reporting and Microsoft’s governance documentation will tell us whether Copilot Tasks is a productivity breakthrough or another cautionary lesson in agentic automation.
Source: Windows Central Microsoft just launched a to-do list tool that completes itself using AI
 
Click to expand...
Microsoft’s Copilot has quietly crossed a threshold: it no longer just answers questions — with the public preview of Copilot Tasks, Microsoft is giving the assistant permission to plan, schedule, and run multi‑step workflows in the background on your behalf, effectively turning your to‑do list into an automated worker you can delegate to.

Background​

Microsoft’s Copilot program has been moving steadily from a chatbox into a platform that can see, speak, and act across the Windows and Microsoft 365 ecosystem. Over the last year that trend accelerated: Copilot Vision and Copilot Voice expanded how the assistant perceives the PC, Copilot Actions introduced experimental agentic capabilities, and Copilot Studio added a “computer use” mode that equips agents to operate apps and websites like a human user. These shifts set the stage for Copilot Tasks, which applies those agentic building blocks to scheduled, background automation.
Copilot Tasks is being rolled out as a limited research preview (joinable by waitlist), not as an immediate general‑availability feature. Microsoft frames the preview as an opportunity to test safety, governance, and reliability at scale before opening the capability more broadly.

What Copilot Tasks is — feature by feature​

At its heart Copilot Tasks is an agentic, cloud‑hosted assistant that converts natural‑language goals into executable, multi‑step plans and runs those plans on a schedule or continuously in the background. Key features reported in early documentation and previews include:
  • Natural‑language goal input — describe goals in plain English (for example: “Monitor the price of a laptop and email me if it drops below $900”), and Copilot will propose a plan.
  • Plan synthesis and multi‑step execution — the assistant breaks goals into discrete steps it can execute across web pages and cloud services, chaining actions as required.
  • Cloud‑hosted, browser‑driven execution — tasks run in Microsoft’s cloud inside a controlled browser environment rather than on your local machine. That design reduces local attack surface and aims to centralize auditing.
  • Scheduling and recurrence — tasks can be scheduled once, repeated, or left to run continuously until conditions are met.
  • Permission and consent gates — any action that would send messages, spend money, or otherwise take consequential actions requires explicit user confirmation before final execution. Microsoft positions these gates as primary safety mechanisms.
  • Reporting and results — the agent reports back with a summary of actions taken, outcomes, and any follow‑up suggestions so users can verify results.
Together, these features promise to move many repetitive workflows from manual to automatic while preserving visible user control for sensitive operations.

How it works (technical view)​

Copilot Tasks appears to be the integration of several technologies Microsoft has been building into Copilot and Edge:
  • Planner/Executor pipeline — the assistant uses large language model reasoning to convert a goal into a plan (a sequence of steps), then maps those steps to platform‑capable actions. The plan phase is where intent understanding, ambiguity resolution, and permission decisions happen.
  • Contained browser execution — execution occurs inside a cloud browser session that is isolated and auditable. This lets Copilot click buttons, fill forms, and interact with web apps without running untrusted code on the user’s device, and it creates a consistent runtime for the agent across users.
  • Connectors and identity — when it needs to act on your behalf in services like Outlook, OneDrive, or third‑party cloud apps, Copilot uses explicit connectors and consented account access to perform tasks. These connectors mirror the broader Copilot strategy of opt‑in linkages to Gmail, Google Drive, OneDrive and similar services in earlier feature waves.
  • Governance hooks — enterprise tenants can place policy controls, logging, and data‑loss prevention (DLP) rules around Copilot behaviors, limiting what agents can read or write and ensuring actions remain auditable. Microsoft emphasizes a governance‑first approach for agentic features.
Note: exact implementation details — such as the precise runtime isolation, encryption at rest for execution snapshots, or forensic log formats — are not fully public in the preview materials. Those specifics will matter for enterprise adoption and should be verified against Microsoft’s technical documentation before deployment.

Realistic use cases​

Early previews and writeups highlight a set of practical, user‑facing scenarios where Copilot Tasks could save hours each week:
  • Email triage — automatically sort, summarize, and flag important messages; propose replies or schedule follow‑ups. This is most valuable for high‑volume inboxes.
  • Appointment booking — find available time slots across multiple calendars and complete booking forms with minimal interaction.
  • Price or status monitoring — watch product prices, stock levels, or service availability and notify you or take predefined actions when thresholds are hit.
  • Document generation and export — create templated Word, Excel, PowerPoint files from prompts and store them in OneDrive or share via email. These capabilities reflect Copilot’s existing document‑creation workflows.
  • Cross‑account research — search across linked inboxes and drives (with permission) and deliver consolidated results or periodic digests.
For individuals and small teams, these workflows can materially reduce context switching and the repetitive clicking that consumes much of the workday.

What Copilot Tasks means for IT and enterprise governance​

Copilot Tasks changes the calculus for IT and security teams because it adds a new category of background automation that operates with real accounts, may interact with external websites, and could — in edge cases — execute actions with business impact.
  • Governance is now proactive, not reactive. Admins must define what Copilot agents can and cannot do, who can create and approve tasks, and how approvals are recorded. Microsoft’s preview materials indicate tenant policy controls and logging are part of that picture.
  • DLP and data residency matter. Because an agent might read or copy sensitive documents while composing reports or booking services, existing DLP rules should be evaluated to ensure the agent can’t exfiltrate protected data inadvertently. Enterprises with strict residency or compliance needs should validate where execution snapshots and logs are stored.
  • Access control & least privilege. Avoid giving agents broad access to service accounts. Use per‑task consent, short‑lived tokens, and role‑based restrictions to limit lateral movement risk.
  • Auditability and incident response. Maintain clear, tamper‑resistant logs of what an agent did and why, plus easy ways to roll back or revoke actions. Microsoft’s architecture for cloud execution is designed to centralize this telemetry, but organizations should confirm retention policies and integration with SIEM systems.

Security and privacy: strengths and clear risks​

Microsoft has designed multiple defense‑in‑depth features into Copilot Tasks — cloud isolation, permission gates for high‑risk actions, and tenant governance controls are positive steps toward safer automation. These design choices reduce some local attack vectors and make centralized oversight possible.
But important risks remain:
  • Automation fragility and misexecution. Web automation is inherently brittle: page changes, CAPTCHAs, multi‑factor authentication, or dynamic client‑side behavior can break a workflow or cause unintended actions. Organizations should assume automation will sometimes fail and design human‑in‑the‑loop checkpoints for consequential workflows.
  • Account compromise amplification. If an agent is authorized to act with a user’s credentials, a compromised agent or stolen task definition could be used to perform fraud or lateral movement. Controls such as short‑lived tokens and per‑task approval reduce this risk but do not eliminate it.
  • Data exposure and privacy gaps. Agents that aggregate content across inboxes and drives create concentrated views of sensitive data. Without careful DLP and governance, an agent could surface or leak personally identifiable information or regulated data.
  • Regulatory and legal uncertainty. Automated interactions with third‑party services (for example, automatically placing orders or completing forms) can raise contractual and legal questions — who is ultimately liable for an automated purchase or a contract signed via agent action? Enterprises should coordinate legal review for mission‑critical automations.
In short: Copilot Tasks presents strong productivity upside, but it also raises the bar for rigorous policy‑driven deployment.

How Copilot Tasks compares with existing automation (Power Automate, RPA)​

Copilot Tasks isn’t a direct replacement for Power Automate or classic RPA tools; it occupies a different place on the capability spectrum:
  • Natural language vs. explicit flow design. Copilot Tasks emphasizes goal‑oriented natural‑language instructions, whereas Power Automate and many RPA solutions rely on explicit flow builders and structured triggers. This lowers the barrier for non‑technical users.
  • Cloud‑hosted agents vs. local bots. Many RPA setups run on local machines or on-prem controllers; Copilot Tasks is cloud‑hosted and browser‑driven, which centralizes execution and auditing but can introduce network‑boundary concerns.
  • Ad hoc vs. production workflows. Power Automate is often used for production, enterprise‑grade automation with governance baked in. Copilot Tasks aims to be more flexible and accessible, but until its governance features mature, IT teams may treat it as a complement rather than a replacement.
Organizations should treat Copilot Tasks as an additional automation tool: powerful for quick wins and personal productivity, but requiring the same lifecycle controls (design, test, approve, monitor) as any enterprise automation.

Practical steps — a checklist for administrators and power users​

If your organization plans to test or pilot Copilot Tasks, follow a disciplined approach:
  • Start small: pilot with low‑risk, high‑value automations (price monitoring, read‑only digests).
  • Define role-based permissions: limit who can create, approve, and manage tasks.
  • Enable explicit consent gates: require manual confirmation for any task that sends messages, executes purchases, or modifies critical systems.
  • Integrate logs with SIEM: ensure agent actions are captured and searchable in existing security telemetry.
  • Apply DLP and data residency rules: treat agents as an extension of the user and enforce the same classification and handling policies.
  • Train staff and create a runbook: include expected failure modes, manual overrides, and escalation paths.
These steps balance speed of adoption with a pragmatic risk posture.

Early impressions: strengths, UX tradeoffs, and likely adoption patterns​

Strengths:
  • Lowered friction for automation. Natural‑language goaling and cloud execution let more people automate tasks without deep RPA expertise. This matches Microsoft’s broader accessibility goals for Copilot.
  • Centralized audit and control potential. Running tasks in Microsoft’s cloud browser gives organizations a single place to observe agent behavior, which is easier to secure than a dozen unmanaged local bots.
Tradeoffs and limitations:
  • Brittleness of web automations remains a practical issue, and Microsoft will need robust error‑handling and human‑fallback flows to make Copilot Tasks reliable for business processes.
  • Governance maturity is the gating factor for enterprise adoption. Early previews indicate governance hooks exist, but organizations will want deeper policy controls, tenant‑level auditability, and legal clarity before scaling.
Adoption patterns we expect:
  • Individual productivity first. Consumers and power users will adopt Copilot Tasks for personal automation and time savings.
  • Small teams and knowledge workers next. Teams that can tolerate some brittleness but see immediate ROI (e.g., sales, recruiting, procurement) will follow.
  • Conservative enterprise rollout. Regulated industries and large IT organizations will move slowly, pilot cautiously, and require formal integration with existing governance frameworks.

What we still don’t know (and what to watch for)​

Early documentation and previews are promising, but several critical details remain either unconfirmed or incomplete in public materials:
  • Execution snapshot retention and access: how long Microsoft retains a task’s execution trace and who (customer admins, Microsoft support) can access it. This is crucial for compliance and incident response.
  • Encryption and key management specifics: whether execution logs or temporary tokens can be bound to tenant‑controlled keys. Enterprises needing strong custody will watch for this.
  • Integration depth with enterprise identity providers: does the preview support conditional access, device posture checks, and fine‑grained RBAC for agent actions out of the box?
  • Limits and throttling behavior: how the service handles scale, rate‑limits for web interactions, and the impact of automated retries on external services. These operational considerations will determine whether Copilot Tasks is safe for production workloads.
If Microsoft addresses these points with clear technical documentation and admin controls, Copilot Tasks could move from an interesting preview to a broadly useful automation platform.

Bottom line​

Copilot Tasks advances a simple but profound idea: tell an assistant what you want done, and let it handle the messy, repetitive steps — on a schedule and in the background. The preview demonstrates meaningful progress toward that vision by combining natural‑language planning, cloud‑based execution, and tenant governance hooks.
However, this is also a moment for caution: automation that can act autonomously across accounts and the web raises legitimate security, privacy, and compliance questions. Organizations should pilot Copilot Tasks with well‑scoped scenarios, enforce least‑privilege access, integrate agent logs into security workflows, and insist on tight DLP controls before delegating mission‑critical work.
For individual users and small teams, Copilot Tasks promises immediate productivity gains — a new kind of digital assistant that doesn’t just tell you what to do, it quietly does the work. For enterprises, Copilot Tasks is an important new tool that will demand disciplined governance and technical scrutiny before it becomes a default part of the automation stack.

Recommended next steps for readers​

  • If you’re an IT leader: form a cross‑functional pilot team (security, legal, operations) and run a short controlled pilot on low‑risk workflows.
  • If you’re a power user: experiment with Copilot Tasks for personal automations that avoid financial or compliance exposure, and document failure modes.
  • If you’re a security practitioner: map Copilot Task actions to existing threat models and ensure agent telemetry is ingestible by your SIEM.
Copilot Tasks is a bold step toward delegating more of our digital labor to intelligent systems. The potential productivity upside is real — but so are the new responsibilities it imposes on users, administrators, and vendors. As the preview expands, watch for deeper governance controls, clearer operational guarantees, and practical lessons from early adopters that will determine whether this promising capability becomes a reliable part of everyday work.
Source: PCWorld Microsoft's Copilot Tasks takes care of your to-do list for you
Source: blockchain.news Microsoft Copilot Tasks: Latest Automation Breakthrough for 2026 Workflows and Productivity | AI News Detail
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Featured
  • Article Article
Copilot Tasks: Auto Scheduling with Researcher and Analyst Agents in Microsoft 365
Replies
0
Views
25
ChatGPT
  • Featured
  • Article Article
Microsoft Copilot Tasks: Unified Scheduling with Researcher and Analyst Agents
Replies
0
Views
29
ChatGPT
  • Featured
  • Article Article
AI Workflows in Teams: Copilot Powered Scheduled Prompts Now GA
Replies
0
Views
20
ChatGPT
  • Featured
  • Article Article
Scheduled Copilot Prompts in Microsoft 365: Proactive Automation for Teams
Replies
0
Views
48
ChatGPT
  • Featured
  • Article Article
Microsoft AI Workflows: Scheduled Copilot Prompts for Teams
Replies
0
Views
28
ChatGPT