Operations | Monitoring | ITSM | DevOps | Cloud

AI is writing more of the code. Software delivery, the work between writing code and running it in production, is where most of the day still goes. Building, testing, scanning, deploying, remediating, and operating still require the same, if not more, effort as before AI. Today, we're introducing Autonomous Worker Agents for software delivery: the platform for enterprises to build and safely run AI agents that handle the work between writing code and shipping it to production.

When something goes down, the last thing you want is to alt-tab between a monitoring dashboard, your on-call tool, and three Slack threads to figure out what is happening and who owns it. That context is usually all there. It is just scattered. The Hyperping MCP server fixes that by putting your monitoring data inside the AI tools you already work in. Your agent can read monitor state, outage timelines, SLAs, and on-call schedules, and answer the questions you would normally chase across tabs.

In our previous post on AI tokenomics, we looked at the rising cost challenge behind token-based AI systems. When enterprise IT teams rely on AI to reason through the same repeatable work over and over again, the costs to resolve those tasks may increase to an unreasonable level. That is where a deterministic IT automation platform becomes essential. A deterministic workflow follows predefined logic, meaning that given the same inputs and conditions, it produces the same expected result.

AI coding assistants like Claude, Cursor, Codex, GitHub Copilot have become standard tools in the modern engineering workflow. Developers use them to write code, generate tests, and review pull requests. But when something breaks in production, these assistants hit a wall: they have no access to your actual system state. They can reason about logs, traces, and metrics. They just can't see yours.

A year ago, the sentence “I just deployed an app on GitHub” wouldn’t have made sense coming from me. I’m the VP of People at CloudZero; code deployments and I were not close friends. That’s changed. In this AI era, non-engineers are building, and I think that’s a genuinely good thing. But only if it’s tied to something that matters.

If you run Claude through LiteLLM, some of that spend is probably going uncounted – and you can’t see it, precisely because the data isn’t there. Routing through a gateway is messier than it looks: LiteLLM alone can carry Claude several ways – the OpenAI-compatible endpoint, and the Anthropic pass-through proxy that the native SDK and Claude Code use – and each path describes the same call differently.

In the first experiment, I wanted a baseline: if an AI coding agent gets the same production signal a human would get, can it fix bugs in a codebase it has never seen? Yes, but only when I gave it better context. With only an alert, the agent passed 51% of the runtime tests. When I added captured traffic, the actual request and response for the failing call, it climbed to 77%. This post is the second pass.