NoPager

AUTOSOLVE / FROM REQUEST TO RESULT

The app was down.
AutoSolve worked out the fix.

AutoSolve took on the investigation, prepared the repair, and checked that the application worked again.

Follow a recorded application repair. Then choose a problem your team knows too well.

Inspect the repair Try it against your kind of work ↓

THE WORK BETWEEN “BROKEN” AND “WORKING”

No repair script
was handed to AutoSolve.

The submitted request included the application error, affected target and allowed scope. AutoSolve gathered the additional evidence it needed.

  1. 01

    Investigate the application.

    AutoSolve requested the configuration, available data paths, last-known-good configuration and relevant application code. It inspected the connected target.

  2. 02

    Generate a repair from that evidence.

    The application pointed to a data file that no longer existed. AutoSolve prepared a configuration repair with a backup and a functional check.

  3. 03

    Apply the approved change.

    A reviewer approved the exact generated plan. The native agent changed the configuration and kept a backup. Independent inspection found the application code and data unchanged.

  4. 04

    Check the application, then report back.

    The application returned HTTP 200 and loaded its data. The required check passed; a separate inspection confirmed the response. The employee’s resolved feedback was saved with the request.

See what the employee saw.

A completed action, its check result, and a way to say whether help is still needed. Technical execution evidence stays with the request.

Read the evidence and its scope

This is a real AI-provider and native-agent execution against an isolated Linux test application, not a customer case study. The request supplied the visible error and configuration-only boundaries. AutoSolve acquired the additional technical evidence without an operator supplying it afterward. This run required human approval; eligible actions can follow automatic company policy in other workflows.

The repair did not restart the application. One configuration file changed and one backup was added. This establishes recovery of this test application, not a universal resolution rate or a reduction in customer staffing.

Download the concise evidence record
Actual application capture. Open to inspect the full screen.

MAKE THIS ABOUT YOUR TEAM

What would you like
off your queue?

Choose a starting point. We’ll turn your example into a short, practical evaluation brief you can share with your team.

Start with the work

A few sentences are enough. Leave out employee records, credentials and private logs.

Your brief will cover

  • The work AutoSolve could take on
  • Systems and access needed to demonstrate it
  • Approvals and exceptions a person would still handle
  • A result your team can independently check

Next: add your name and email. The initial brief is free; any implementation or paid pilot is agreed separately. No installation needed to start.

ALREADY HAVE SCRIPTS OR AN ITSM TOOL?

Compare the whole
workflow.

Keep what already works. Evaluate whether AutoSolve can take on the investigation, adaptation and result checking that still falls to your people.

A useful comparison has four questions.

  1. Who gathers the missing facts?
  2. What happens when the saved fix does not fit?
  3. Who checks the actual application afterward?
  4. What is learned from success, failure and employee feedback?
Inspect the learning workflow Review execution controls