Operations | Monitoring | ITSM | DevOps | Cloud

Here's a scene playing out in engineering teams right now. An engineer spends the weekend running four or five coding agents in parallel. Monday morning, a teammate opens their laptop to 53 changed files with 2000+ diffs and a message that says, more or less, "should be good to merge." Nobody asked for this much output. Nobody has time to review it properly. The team doesn't feel faster. It feels ambushed.

I spend most of my day in Claude Code these days. Most of my development processes changed after having access to my own personal assistant. In this post, I'll show you a real-life example of how bug fixes are often done on elmah.io now. I hope it will inspire someone to optimize their workflow and get even more out of their elmah.io subscription.

“We don’t need junior engineers anymore” has become one of those lines people repeat because it sounds obvious. The AI writes the code, so why pay someone to learn how to write it? On the latest Confident Commit podcast, Rob Zuber makes the case that this take is exactly backwards.

Every team adopting coding agents hits the same question early: where do you put the instructions that tell the agent how your codebase actually works? Two answers dominate the conversation right now. One is AGENTS.md, a plain markdown file at the root of your repo. The other is skills, packaged instruction sets an agent loads on demand. Most of the debate treats this as a formatting decision. It isn’t.

LLM cost management is the practice of tracking, allocating, budgeting, and governing large language model spend so every dollar maps to a feature, team, and business outcome. It has five levels: provider visibility, business allocation, unit economics, model governance, and a continuous optimization loop. It matters because 68% of companies say AI initiatives ran over budget last year, and per CloudZero's 2026 survey, 30% of finance leaders still reconcile AI spend manually.

An AI model can write a fully functioning microservice in about fifteen seconds. If you hook it up to a pull request pipeline, it can generate migrations, write unit tests, and suggest refactors before your lead engineer has finished their first cup of coffee. We are entering an era of unprecedented code velocity. But code is not an application, and shipping is not operating.

Your error monitoring tool found a bug. Now what? For most teams, the answer is the same thing it has been for years: copy the stack trace, find the file, read the code, build a mental model of what went wrong, write the fix, write or update a test, push, and wait for CI. That process hasn’t changed much since error tracking became a category. The tools got better at telling you something broke. They never got better at fixing it.

As the world is racing to plug AI into nearly every part of business, especially software engineering, the stakes to maintain operational integrity have never been higher. AI-generated code and AI-agents ship faster than human SREs can prepare for, which can create costly issues down the line: incidents get harder to predict and more expensive to recover from.