Root-cause analysis (RCA) in large-scale distributed systems is challenging because a single symptom can cross service, data, configuration, compute, and organizational boundaries. Responders must assemble incomplete evidence and coordinate experts who hold different parts of the causal path. Generic language-model agents do not solve this problem through tool access alone: they can use stale or mistimed context, interpret failed queries as absent symptoms, report unsupported system state, and overload observability services designed for human-paced use. We present Diviner (Domain-Informed Verifiable Incident Navigation through Evidence and Review), an agentic RCA system operating at Meta and organized around a four-stage reliability lifecycle. Encode combines a large corpus of reviewed incidents with service-owner expertise to produce scoped, versioned skills, workflows, typed tools, and an incident knowledge graph. Execute uses an adaptive Lead and context-isolated workers to apply relevant knowledge to point-in-time evidence and maintain evidence-linked hypotheses. Evaluate compares saved investigation trajectories with responder-reviewed outcomes to measure exact cause, useful direction, and Groundedness. Adapt uses recurring gaps and on-call feedback to derive focused operational- knowledge updates, admitting them only after replay, quality checks, and owner approval.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Anatomy of a cross-service incident investigation. Solid arrows show representative paths from candidate causes through failure mechanisms and local effects to downstream impact. The dashed path above shows responders tracing the incident in the reverse direction, while service experts examine different parts of the system in parallel.
Figure 2. Relative mitigation time by cause in reviewed ranking-infrastructure incidents. Values are normalized to the corpus-wide median; bars span Q1–Q3 and dots mark category medians on a logarithmic axis.
Requirement
Why it is needed
Design obligation
Grounding
Plausible but absent, stale, or unsupported details can misdirect responders.
Link findings to current, attributed evidence; distinguish empty data from tool failure; abstain when support is insufficient.
Control and load
Adaptive planning and machine-speed queries can amplify a wrong branch, retry loop, or backend load.
Keep the plan revisable while bounding capabilities, concurrency, retries, context, deadlines, and resource use.
Knowledge
Models lack local state, while procedures, ownership, and interfaces drift.
Encode owned, versioned artifacts and track their applicability and quality.
Evaluation
A fluent answer can hide a lucky guess, unsupported reasoning, or wasted work.
Evaluate outcome and trajectory, including direction, grounding, failed checks, and efficiency.
Performance
Assistance must arrive before responders find the same evidence.
Measure time to supported findings and final conclusions, including tail latency.
Action boundary
Tools access sensitive systems, but the model has no authority to change them.
Preserve service authorization and auditability; leave mitigation to responders.
Table 1. Requirements for AI-assisted operational investigation.
Figure 3. Diviner’s four-stage lifecycle. Encode builds governed diagnostic knowledge; Execute combines it with live evidence; Evaluate identifies gaps in the saved trajectory; and Adapt publishes replayed, owner-approved updates.
Figure 4. IKG construction and matching. Reviewed incidents are distilled into semantic views and normalized factors, which form a versioned dual index. At runtime, preliminary symptoms and incident context form a query; semantic retrieval supplies candidates and shared factors constrain and explain the matches. Returned precedents remain hypotheses until verified with live tools.
Figure 5. Executing an investigation. The Lead converts incident context and governed knowledge into focused worker goals. Workers gather live observations through registered tools; an evidence layer preserves their source and status, and the runtime Review Agent checks the result before it reaches a human responder.
Stage
Action
Recorded state
Discover
Search compact metadata; rank relevance first
Query and candidate identifiers
Bind
Resolve an enabled artifact version
Identifier and version
Dispatch
Construct a scoped worker context and tool view
Worker, plan step, and actual tool view
Update
Replay and review before publication
Proposal lineage and new version
Table 2. Registry lifecycle and recorded state.
Outcome
Interpretation
Data returned
Candidate observation after scope and provenance checks
Valid empty result
Potential counter-evidence only for the requested scope
Invalid or denied
No evidence; correct the request or report the authorization failure
Timeout, throttle, or backend failure
No evidence; retain the operational failure
Table 3. Normalized tool outcomes and their evidentiary meaning.
Measure
Result
Observed TDM difference
Approximately 52% lower (95% CI: 45.7–57.9%)
Observed pre-mitigation effort
Approximately 15% lower (95% CI: 11.0–18.1%)
Investigation quality
Full scored operational set; 45% Exact RCA, 60% useful Direction, and 80% mean Groundedness
Operational agent latency
Final conclusion: approximately 15 min p50 and 24.0 min p95; first useful, medium-confidence hypothesis: 7.0 min p50 and 13.7 min p95
Early-trigger advantage
Agent-specific alerts launch investigation before responder-facing incident thresholds and provide roughly a half-hour head start
Knowledge-update activity
>100 cycles; about 30 proposed new skills; all adopted changes passed replay and human approval
Table 4. Operational summary
Measure
Included records
Definition
TDM
Incidents with valid detection and mitigation times
Detection to mitigation, including investigation, coordination, and recovery
Final latency
Completed agent runs
End-to-end agent runtime from trigger acceptance to the final conclusion
First direction
Runs with fine-grained checkpoints
Trigger acceptance to the first useful, medium-confidence hypothesis
Exact RCA
Investigations with reviewed outcomes
Specific causal mechanism identified
Direction
Investigations with reviewed outcomes
Useful narrowing toward the correct subsystem or mechanism
Groundedness
Investigations with reviewable evidence
Degree to which claims remain supported by cited evidence
Table 5. Evaluation measures, included records, and definitions.
Dimension
Positive test
Does not receive credit
Exact RCA
Supported conclusion matches the reviewed causal mechanism.
Restating symptoms, impact, or only the affected component.
Direction
Findings narrow the search toward the correct subsystem, failure family, or mechanism.
Broad guesses or elimination unsupported by current evidence.
Groundedness
Claims and hypothesis transitions follow cited evidence with valid source, scope, time, and outcome.
Unsupported detail or transitions, contradiction, failed-query misuse, unreliable elimination, repeated work, or inconsistent time ranges.
Table 6. DivinerEval dimensions and principal scoring tests.
Root-cause category
RCA
Dir.
Ground.
Stronger observed performance
Infrastructure, hardware, and network
55%
65%
80%
Traffic, scaling, and load management
42%
65%
74%
Moderate performance
Latency and performance regression
41%
55%
61%
Capacity and quota deficit
40%
55%
69%
Table 7. Category-level operational performance across all available Diviner evaluations. Scores are incident-weighted percentages. Green, amber, and red cells denote scores of at least 60%, 40–59%, and below 40%, respectively.
Figure 6. Assisted and unassisted TDM in a fixed operational cohort. Calendar dates are omitted. The top panel recomputes cumulative p50 TDM and normalizes both series to the final unassisted median; the bottom panel shows cumulative cohort share.
Element
Design choice
Baseline
Claude vanilla with native capabilities and without the Diviner harness
Harness comparison
Diviner + Claude adds the Diviner harness while retaining the baseline model
Diviner harness
Governed skills and workflows, historical retrieval, Lead–worker orchestration, tool and evidence contracts, and checkpointing
Platform comparison
Diviner + Codex applies the same harness through a different agentic platform
Operational context
An additional operational configuration is reported for context
Pairing
Every configuration receives the same alert-time input for each incident
Table 8. Controlled-study protocol.
Figure 7. Controlled results for the generic-agent baseline, the Diviner harness on two agentic platforms, and the operational configuration. Panel (a) reports mean Exact RCA, useful Direction, and Groundedness scores. Panel (b) reports wall time, with bars showing p50 and markers showing p90. Paired differences and confidence intervals are reported in the text.
Observed gap
Target
Candidate change
Missing or incorrect diagnostic procedure
Skill
Add checks, decision rules, or interpretation guidance
Wrong ordering, dependency, or coverage
Workflow
Revise initial steps, branches, or skill bindings
Evidence unavailable, malformed, or repeatedly misused
Tool contract
Add a tool or repair inputs, outputs, and failure semantics
Stale scope, ownership, or eligibility
Registry
Correct metadata, filtering, enablement, or version selection
Missing or misleading historical precedent
IKG
Add, relink, rescope, or retire a failure signature
Systematic judge disagreement
Evaluation rubric
Refine scoring criteria without changing agent behavior
Table 9. How DivinerEval findings route to adaptation targets.
Gate
Check
Artifact validation
Schema parses; referenced artifacts resolve; owner, scope, and version are present; requested capabilities remain allowed.
Point-in-time replay
Baseline and candidate receive the same incident-time inputs, registry cutoff, and available tool snapshots.
Quality and regression
Target cases improve without material regressions in Exact RCA, Direction, Groundedness, latency, or tool behavior on relevant cases.
Leakage control
Runtime inputs exclude reviewed outcomes and later discussion; the candidate artifact is the only intended post-incident change.
Owner decision
The owner reviews the artifact diff, motivating evidence, replay comparison, and recorded regressions before approval.
Release control
An approved change receives a new version and retains monitoring, disablement, rollback, and proposal lineage.
Table 10. Checks applied before an adaptation can enter a registry.
Automated root cause analysis (RCA) with large language models (LLMs) has drawn growing attention. Today, SREs typically automate RCA with LLMs in one of two ways: directly using a general-purpose agent (e.g., Codex or Claude Code) for diagnosis, or building a specialized RCA agent from scratch. As mainstream general agents grow more capable and iterate quickly, our quantitative study finds that the former now often surpasses the latter. Its accuracy, however, still falls short of production needs, and this gap stems mainly from the external adaptation layer outside the agent's general capabilities, namely the harness. We therefore argue that LLM-based RCA should focus on this external harness, reusing the strong general capabilities of a modern agent rather than rebuilding an agent from scratch. A key capability of such a harness is to self-evolve, accumulating system-specific experience from past diagnoses so that it gets better the more it is used. We introduce OpsHarness, a self-evolving RCA harness that turns diagnosis experience into reusable expertise. Its data plane combines layered operational knowledge with an idea-card tool library, while its control plane coordinates setup, diagnosis, evolution, and verification. During evolution, OpsHarness contrasts successful and failed trajectories, converts their evidence into atomic proposals, and admits updates only through a dual-gate verification process designed to prevent overfitting and regression. Across two public benchmarks and an industrial deployment, OpsHarness achieves 59.0% top-1 accuracy, improving over a bare general agent by 63.4% and over baseline RCA agents by 4.02×.
Haiyu Huang, Jiewei Lyu, Zhihan Jiang +5
The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Individual Researcher · ByteDance
LLM-based root cause analysis (RCA) agents have recently emerged as a promising paradigm for incident diagnosis in microservice AIOps. However, their reliability remains fragile: an error in early evidence collection, hypothesis formulation, or causal analysis can propagate through the reasoning trace and eventually corrupt the final diagnosis. In this paper, we present STAR, a Stage-attributed Triage and Repair framework for repairing erroneous RCA traces. STAR explicitly decomposes an RCA workflow into four structured stages, namely Evidence Package (EP), Hypothesis Set (HS), Analysis Structure (AS), and Decision Report (DR), and treats agent failure as a stage-localizable reasoning bug rather than a monolithic end-to-end error. Built on top of LangGraph, STAR performs stage-wise auditing, budget-aware Fast/Slow Routing, decisive stage localization via counterfactual candidate evaluation, and stage-specific patch-and-replay repair. We evaluate STAR on a public large-scale benchmark and a real-world production dataset, using two RCA agent workflows and three foundation models. Experimental results show that STAR consistently improves both root cause localization and fault type classification over strong baselines. Moreover, STAR identifies the decisive faulty stage with high accuracy, repairs most initially incorrect traces within one or two replay rounds, and benefits substantially from both Fast/Slow Routing and counterfactual stage evaluation. These results suggest that explicitly modeling where an RCA agent fails is an effective path toward reliable, debuggable, and self-repairing agentic RCA systems.
Junle Wang, Xingchuang Liao, Wenjun Wu
School of Artificial Intelligence, Beihang University
System administrators of Internet-scale services need to resolve failure incidents to maintain reliability of such services. Ideally, we want a troubleshooting system to be: (1) expressive to known and unknown incidents with high accuracy; (2) cost efficient at scale; (3) explainable to provide actionable insights operators can act on; and (4) entail low effort from the operators. Unfortunately, most existing systems, including emerging LLM-assisted agentic workflows and structured frameworks for authoring diverse RCA algorithms fall short of achieving all four requirements. We present E4, a novel agentic system for troubleshooting for Internet-scale services. E4 embodies the paradigm of constrained creativity that combines the best of LLM-assisted automation and exploration with the explainability and efficiency of a structured approach. Instead of allowing an LLM agent to write arbitrary code or generate arbitrary responses, we provide the agent a restricted DSL to generate its response via simple loop-free data flow programs. This DSL, equipped with high level operators for troubleshooting, makes E4's output accurate, verifiable and explainable. On a mix of synthetic and real-world workloads, E4 achieves up to 62% better accuracy compared to state-of-the-art solutions, while providing more explainable responses at up to 12x reduced cost.
Sayan Sinha, Vipul Harsh, B. Aditya Prakash +2
Georgia Tech · Conviva · Carnegie Mellon University