A RU Tuna (Habr)·Practitioner post·

AIOps: HolmesGPT on three projects

AIOps: наш опыт внедрения HolmesGPT на трёх проектах

A · Strong evidence DevOps team Tuna's detailed month-one report on running the open-source HolmesGPT agent across six Kubernetes clusters, with an open-sourced bridge, a 52-run model comparison and costs reconciled to billing; the headline accuracy figure is openly labelled an impression.

Summary based on the full text·Original: about 20 minutes to read

In short

A Habr post (13 October 2026) from Tuna, a DevOps services team, on putting HolmesGPT, a CNCF Sandbox SRE agent, behind Alertmanager in six Kubernetes clusters: its own and five client clusters across a Russian cloud and a foreign two-cloud project. The agent has read-only access and only writes a hypothesis into Slack or Telegram a few minutes after an alert; it fixes nothing. Because the open-source version has no push integration, the team built and published holmes-alert-bridge, a Go service whose main job is to cap spend.

Key numbers

  • 645 to 41alerts delivered to the bridge in Tuna's first month versus those that reached the agent after dedup, allowlist and throttling
  • 52test runs across eight models in three waves, including a task with a known answer
  • 10-30 centscost of one alert investigation, depending on model; 2-3 minutes median duration
  • 90-95%share of hypotheses the team believes are correct, an on-call impression rather than a measurement
  • ~90%estimated share of input tokens served from cache, which carries the cost economics

As reported by the source.

Read the original on habr.com

Russian·Web page·opens habr.com

What it reports

  • Median time from alert firing to a hypothesis in chat is about four minutes including Alertmanager grouping delay.
  • Bridge controls: allowlist by alert name (empty list blocks start-up), dedup per episode, default cap of two investigations an hour and ten a day, one worker, 15-minute timeout that cuts the stream.
  • Model bake-off: deepseek-v4-flash completed 16 of 16 runs and solved the known-answer task 4 of 4; half the candidates failed it the same way, confidently stating that a managed autoscaler did not exist.
  • Variance within one model exceeded the price difference between models; single-run comparisons were misleading.
  • Production results over 30 days to 6 October 2026: 22 of 22 successful investigations in Tuna, 92.9% in the Russian-cloud project, 15 of 15 abroad on Claude Sonnet 5. Monthly bills were a few dollars per project; Tuna's estimate matched provider billing to the cent.
  • A 200k-token window triggered compaction near 126k and made runs slower and costlier; a 400k window stopped it.
  • A "have we seen this before" skill searched the wrong log field in two of three setups for a month and always reported no history, including for an episode investigated 19 times.
  • Tools not named in a skill were almost never called.

How they got it

Production deployment notes with configuration, logs and billing. The model comparison used 4 to 16 runs per model, priced as an upper bound without cache. The team states it has no clean before-and-after comparison for the model switch, because prompts and the bridge changed at the same time.

Limits

  • Hypothesis accuracy has not been measured against real incident causes; the 90-95% is a stated impression.
  • No measurement yet of time saved for on-call staff.
  • Small samples per model in the bake-off; the Sonnet project had no model comparison.

Why it matters for companies

This is a useful template for putting an agent into operations without giving it write access: read-only RBAC, hypothesis-only output, hard spend caps outside the model, and a monthly limit on the provider key. The data warning applies to any agent that reads logs: whatever it reads goes to the model provider, so tokens and personal data in logs must be fixed in the application first, and zero-retention settings must be verified with live requests. The broken memory skill is the strongest lesson: an agent tool that returns nothing looks the same as one that works, so skills need testing like code.

Key passages in translation

Russian original

По нашему опыту гипотеза оказывается верной в 90–95 % случаев. Это именно оценка по ощущениям от дежурств, а не результат замера

English translation

In our experience the hypothesis turns out correct in 90-95% of cases. This is an estimate from how on-call shifts felt, not the result of a measurement.

Russian original

Агент не отличает секрет от обычной строки: содержимое лога попадает в запрос к модели как есть.

English translation

The agent does not tell a secret from an ordinary string: the log content goes into the request to the model as is.

Russian original

Мораль шире: skill для агента надо тестировать как код.

English translation

The moral is wider: a skill for an agent has to be tested like code.

Summary based on the full text. Read the original for the full argument and data.Read the original on habr.com

Same week

All of Week 42