Documentation-based setup; account checks still required. I have not executed this in an authenticated HubSpot account. The examples are fictional. Check your available properties, filters and sharing controls before using it with the team. No upgrade, customer messages or automated stage changes are part of this setup.

Build the smallest view

Choose what belongs in the review first.

For this example, use a fictional pipeline called Commercial sales. Agree which of its stages are open. Use your actual stage list; a name such as Negotiation is not a universal HubSpot stage.

  1. 01

    Start from the Deals index

    Create a table view. Give it a name that describes the condition, such as Open deals — missing next step.

  2. 02

    Keep the scope in one group

    Use AND criteria for Pipeline = Commercial sales, Deal stage = one of the agreed open stages, and Next step is unknown. Confirm the available operator and treatment of empty values in your account.

  3. 03

    Show the context for a conversation

    Include deal name, stage, owner, Next step, Last contacted and Next activity date. Open the underlying record when the summary is insufficient.

  4. 04

    Check a few identifiable records

    Compare the returned rows with the deal records before sharing. Verify an empty field, a populated field, a closed deal and a deal in another pipeline.

Read the right signal

These properties answer different questions.

Use deal-property definitions, not a similar-looking field from the contact object. The cautions below concern what a value can establish; they do not claim that an unlogged conversation never happened.

Deal propertyUse in this reviewDo not infer
Next stepA description of intended action.That the action happened or has an agreed due date.
Last activity dateRecent recorded activity, including notes and completed tasks.That the buyer was contacted.
Last contactedQualifying logged contact activity.A complete history of unlogged conversations.
Next activity dateQualifying upcoming activity.That a blank value proves no task or agreement exists.
Last modified dateA property update, potentially internal.That the deal has made commercial progress.

Fictional worked review

A row needs an explanation before it needs a fix.

Suppose Maya manages the review and Alex owns deal D-301. These invented cases show the intended rule. They are not live records or observed HubSpot test results.

D-301: open, selected pipeline, empty Next step; meeting scheduled.

Included in the minimal view?: Yes — the description is missing.

What to inspect or do: Alex checks the meeting and records what it is for and what follows. Do not send a reminder just because the field was blank.

D-302: open, selected pipeline, Next step recorded; Next activity blank.

Included in the minimal view?: No — not selected by this rule.

What to inspect or do: The minimal view makes no claim about whether the recorded plan has a scheduled activity. Review that separately if needed.

D-303: closed won, selected pipeline, Next step empty.

Included in the minimal view?: No — closed stages are outside scope.

What to inspect or do: If it appears, repair the filter before interpreting the queue.

D-304: open in another pipeline, Next step empty.

Included in the minimal view?: No — outside the selected pipeline.

What to inspect or do: Use it to test that scope is applied to every filter group.

D-305: open, selected pipeline, Next step empty; an incomplete task exists.

Included in the minimal view?: Yes — the task does not fill the description.

What to inspect or do: Read the task and the agreement it supports. Do not create duplicate work to clear the row.

D-306: open, selected pipeline, Next step empty; recent internal note.

Included in the minimal view?: Yes — recorded activity is a different signal.

What to inspect or do: Inspect the note and relevant buyer interaction. Do not label the deal neglected from this row alone.

What are we waiting for, and who does what next?

For D-301, Alex might confirm that Thursday’s meeting is to agree the implementation scope. A useful next step could be: “Alex to send the scope questions before Thursday’s meeting; confirm the decision owner on the call.” Record the due date in the appropriate activity as well. That is an invented example of useful context, not a prescribed message to a buyer.

Sometimes waiting is deliberate. Record the reason and the agreed review date rather than inventing an activity to make the row disappear. If Alex cannot explain the deal, Maya needs a conversation and a decision; a bulk field update would only hide the gap.

Only if the team needs it

Adding another missing field changes the question.

Keep the minimal view first. An optional second group for missing Next activity date widens the review. Test that property in your account and repeat the pipeline and open-stage scope in each OR group; otherwise unrelated deals can leak in. This is a logic specification, not a tested account configuration.

GroupAll conditions in the group
ASelected pipeline AND agreed open stages AND Next step unknown
OR B, optionalSelected pipeline AND agreed open stages AND Next activity date unknown
Check the consequenceD-302 now enters through B. D-303 and D-304 must still stay out.

Before the team relies on it

Check the saved view from another user’s account.

HubSpot distinguishes profile-local changes from shared view configuration. Its filtering and saved-view guides describe saving differently. Confirm the controls in your account instead of assuming a personal change has reached colleagues.

  1. 01

    Confirm the shared configuration

    Inspect the root view settings, filters and intended audience. Use the available save or publish controls for that configuration; check the current HubSpot guide.

  2. 02

    Reload and compare the test cases

    Verify that the criteria persist and that the fictional acceptance cases have equivalent controlled test records. Record actual results instead of marking the proposal tested.

  3. 03

    Ask a second authorised user to check

    Compare the intended criteria and visibility. Permission differences can legitimately change visible rows; investigate the cause rather than widening access just to make the counts match.

  4. 04

    Agree who maintains the view

    Name who checks the rule when stages or processes change. A reviewed row may need a next action, a justified wait or a correction to the rule; do not equate an empty queue with a healthy pipeline.