Solution · By agent
Every ticket that comes in, someone opens it, hunts the answer in the knowledge base, writes the reply and, if it applies, jumps into another system to do the action —the refund, the exchange, the order status. The AI support agent does that whole case end to end and leaves a person only the exception: we ship it on your helpdesk and your systems and leave it running.
A good support agent reads the ticket, gets what it’s about, looks up the answer in the docs, replies and —when needed— goes into the system to run the action: processes the refund, handles the exchange, checks the order status. The problem is most of those cases are repeatable and resolvable, and they still eat the team alive one case after another. We ship that agent as a digital employee on your helpdesk and the systems where the action runs: it reads the incoming ticket, finds the answer in your knowledge base, writes and sends the reply, does the action end to end and escalates only the exception to a person. It’s not the 24/7 support channel or the one that routes the tickets: it’s the one that resolves them. We build it on what you already use and leave it running, with a person supervising what isn’t obvious.
The problem
Answering the ticket isn’t the job; resolving the case is —and most of the day goes into resolving the same old thing by hand.
- Every case goes through a person who reads it, guesses what it’s about, hunts the answer in the docs and writes it from scratch —even when it’s the same case they resolved ten times yesterday.
- Replying doesn’t close the case: you have to leave the helpdesk and go into another system to run the action —process the refund, handle the exchange, check the order status— and then note that it’s done.
- The customer asks the same thing three times while the ticket bounces between inboxes, and every reply starts without the context of the last one because nobody reads the whole thread.
- The repeatable, resolvable cases —the ones with a known answer and action— clog the queue, and the ones that actually need judgment wait behind them.
Cost of staying the same
The time spent resolving the same case by hand over and over shows up on no expense line: it shows up as queues that don’t come down, as resolution times that stretch, as people who are good at the hard case playing copier between the helpdesk and the order system, and as customers who measure your support by how long it took to close, not by how well the reply was written. Hiring more people covers a peak, not the daily repetition; and support judgment stays trapped in cases that don’t need it. You pay the cost of a team resolving by hand what already has a known answer and action, and of a queue that never quite empties.
The solution
A support agent shipped on your helpdesk that reads the ticket, hunts the answer, replies and runs the action end to end, with a person validating the exception
- 1We set the criteria and the limits with you: which case types it resolves in full —refunds, exchanges, order status, data updates, questions solvable with your docs—, which actions it can run in each system, what it replies and closes on its own and what it passes to you to validate before touching anything.
- 2The agent reads every incoming ticket —over email, chat, form or WhatsApp Business—, identifies what it’s about and looks up the answer in your knowledge base: your real docs, your policies, your history of resolved cases, not a generic template.
- 3It writes and sends the reply in your tone, and runs the action in the right system —processes the refund, handles the exchange, checks and communicates the order status, updates the data—; then it updates the ticket status and closes it documented.
- 4It starts with a safety net and measured: the agent proposes and a person validates the exception, we compare its resolution against the one your team would give, and we only widen its autonomy by case type when the data backs it. Anything sensitive or off-script escalates to a person with the whole thread in front of them.
What changes
What you stop losing
The repeatable case stops being resolved by hand: the agent reads the ticket, finds the answer in your docs, replies and runs the action, so the team moves to the hard case, which is where their judgment is worth it.
Mechanism
Replying and resolving stop being two steps: the agent writes the reply and, in the same pass, runs the refund, the exchange or the order status in the system, without anyone jumping from the helpdesk to another screen and back.
Mechanism
The queue stops clogging with the same old thing: cases with a known answer and action close on their own as they come in, and what needs judgment reaches a person with the thread and the context already gathered, not from scratch.
Mechanism
What we measure: % of tickets resolved end to end without intervention, time to resolution before and after, actions run correctly versus the ones that get corrected, and cases escalated to a person.
What we measure
Spec sheet
- Work it removes
- having a person read every ticket, hunt the answer in the docs, write it from scratch and then leave the helpdesk for another system to run the action —the refund, the exchange, the order status— for repeatable cases that already have a known answer and action
- Typical setup
- 2–4 weeks
- Input
- incoming ticket or message (email, chat, form or WhatsApp Business), your knowledge base and history of resolved cases, and the systems where the action runs
- Output
- case resolved end to end: the reply written and sent, the action run in the right system, the ticket status updated and the case closed and documented —with the exception escalated to a person with the whole thread
- Works with
- ZendeskIntercomFreshdeskHelp ScoutGorgiasHubSpot Service HubSalesforce Service CloudWhatsApp Business
- Can connect to
- The ticket and the thread in your helpdeskYour knowledge base and history of resolved casesThe systems where the action runs (e-commerce, order manager, ERP or CRM)The criteria and the authorized actions we set with you
- What we measure
- % of tickets resolved end to end without interventiontime to resolution before and afteractions run correctly versus the ones that get correctedcases escalated to a person
- Good fit for
- support teams with a high volume of repeatable, resolvable cases —refunds, exchanges, order status, questions with an answer in the docs— resolved by hand one case after another
- Not a fit for
- support that almost always needs judgment and human empathy from the first second, or cases whose answer isn’t in any consultable source; if you just want to tag and route tickets, that’s what classifying tickets is for, and if you just want to cover the channel at any hour, that’s what 24/7 support is for
Frequently asked questions
They’re three different pieces. 24/7 support is the channel —that the line or the chat answer at any hour—; classifying tickets is triage —tagging the reason, prioritizing and routing each case to the right queue, but without resolving it. This is the next step: the agent that takes the already-classified ticket and resolves it in full —hunts the answer, replies and runs the action (refund, exchange, order status)— and closes the case, escalating only the exception to a person. Triage routes; this one resolves. Many clients run them together —the channel receives, triage sorts and the agent closes—, but each does a different job.
It runs them. That’s the line that separates it from an FAQ chatbot: it doesn’t stop at replying “your refund is processed in Settings”, it goes into the system and processes it —handles the exchange, checks and communicates the order status, updates the data— within the limits we set with you. Replying without resolving leaves the case half-done and a person ends up finishing it anyway; that’s why the agent closes the case, not just the message. Anything outside the actions you authorize escalates.
That’s exactly why it starts supervised and never runs anything sensitive without a net. It resolves within the criteria we set with you —which case types it closes on its own, which actions it can run in each system, what needs approval— and a person validates the exception before anything is committed for real, especially at the start. We compare its resolution against the one your team would give before widening its autonomy, and we only hand it more case types when the data backs it. If it does something it shouldn’t, it’s in the trace, the rule gets corrected and it doesn’t happen again. We don’t replace judgment on the hard case; we take resolving by hand what already has a known answer and action off the team.
Want it running in your business?
You’ve pinned the problem. We ship the fix and leave it measured.