Skip to content
KeklikTechnologies

Service

Support triage and reply drafting

Every ticket read, sorted, and drafted. Sent by a person.

The expensive part of support is not typing. It is reading a queue, working out what each message is actually about, finding the account, and deciding what matters today. That work is repetitive and largely mechanical, and it is where the time goes.

We automate the reading and the preparation, and leave the sending to your team. Tickets arrive classified, prioritised, linked to the account, and with a draft grounded in your documented answers — not in whatever the model remembers. Confident routine cases can auto-send once you have watched the numbers long enough to want that.

Scope thisAutomation
Datasheet
Channels
Email · Helpdesk · Web form · Chat transcript
Classification
Intent, product area, sentiment, urgency
Enrichment
Account, plan, order, and recent history
Drafting
Grounded in your help centre and past resolutions
Citations
Every draft names the sources it used
Default mode
Draft for approval; auto-send is opt-in per intent
Escalation
Confidence and risk thresholds route to a human
Evaluation
Golden ticket set re-run on every change
Reporting
Volume by intent, deflection, and edit rate
9 specified parameters

How it runs

Every stage, in order.

Each stage produces something the next one needs. Where a stage can fail, it fails visibly rather than passing bad data forward.

  1. 01

    Ingest

    Tickets arrive from your helpdesk or mailbox and are normalised into one shape.

  2. 02

    Classify

    Intent, product area, urgency, and sentiment are assigned against your taxonomy.

  3. 03

    Enrich

    The account, plan, recent orders, and prior tickets are attached before anything is drafted.

  4. 04

    Retrieve

    Relevant help-centre articles and past resolutions are pulled so the draft is grounded, not invented.

  5. 05

    Draft

    A reply is written in your tone, citing the sources it used, with a confidence score.

  6. 06

    Gate

    Billing, legal, security, and cancellation intents always route to a person regardless of confidence.

Output

What arrives.

The shape is agreed before build and versioned after it. This is an illustration of the structure, not a fixed schema — yours is written against your requirements.

Triage output — abbreviatedjson
{
  "ticket_id": "T-99214",
  "intent": "refund_request",
  "intent_confidence": 0.93,
  "product_area": "billing",
  "urgency": "high",
  "sentiment": "frustrated",
  "account": { "id": "acct_5512", "plan": "growth", "mrr": 490,
               "tenure_months": 26, "open_tickets": 2 },
  "risk_flags": ["churn_signal", "second_contact_same_issue"],
  "grounding": [
    { "source": "help/refund-policy", "relevance": 0.91 },
    { "source": "ticket/T-71880", "relevance": 0.84 }
  ],
  "draft": "…",
  "routing": { "decision": "human_required",
               "reason": "billing_intent_always_escalates" }
}

Scope

In detail.

Always routed to a person

08
  • Refunds, chargebacks, and billing disputes
  • Cancellation and downgrade requests
  • Legal threats or regulator mentions
  • Security and data-protection reports
  • Anything touching an account above your value threshold
  • Second contact on an unresolved issue
  • Sentiment below the agreed floor
  • Any intent the classifier is not confident about

Deliverables

What you get.

Written into the scope document before work starts, and used as the acceptance test when it finishes.

  • 01Ingestion from your existing helpdesk or mailbox
  • 02Classification model tuned to your intents, not generic categories
  • 03Account and order context attached to every ticket
  • 04Draft replies grounded in your documentation with citations
  • 05Escalation rules for billing, legal, security, and churn risk
  • 06Evaluation suite built from your real ticket history

Questions

Asked before.

Will it send replies without us seeing them?

Not unless you turn that on, per intent, after reviewing the edit rate. The default is draft-and-approve, and most teams keep it that way for anything touching money.

How do you stop it inventing policy?

Drafts are grounded in your documented answers and cite what they used. If retrieval finds nothing relevant, the system escalates rather than improvising.

Does this replace our helpdesk?

No. It works inside the helpdesk you already use.

How do we know it is working?

Edit rate is the honest metric: how much a human changes before sending. We report it per intent, and it is the number that tells you where the system is genuinely good.

Also in Automation

Service

Document intake

Invoices, purchase orders, and forms turned into validated records, with low-confidence extractions routed to a person instead of guessed.

Service

Estate audit

A structured review of the automations you already run — what exists, what breaks, what costs, and what happens when the person who built it leaves.

Next step

Scope it before you commit to it.

The first step is a short written scope: fields, volume, schedule, delivery, and acceptance criteria. It is quick, it is concrete, and it tells you whether this is worth doing at all.

Request a scopeHow we work