AI SRE that takes the night shift

AI-assisted coding has evolved from a novelty into an industry standard. At ilert, we started our adoption in mid-2023, quickly realizing that success depends heavily on proper context and workflows. This is particularly acute with Rust. While the language is central to our backend infrastructure, its strict compiler rules and distinct idiomatic approaches make it notoriously difficult for modern LLMs to master. Consequently, we spent significant time optimizing our AI-first development practices – an investment that has successfully eliminated development friction and streamlined our onboarding.

This article documents our journey from local code edits to a structured, context-aware workflow using Cursor. We will share the exact strategies, rule files, and planning workflows that turned the AI from a toy into a reliable contributor.

Our journey from code snippets to multi-agent workflows

At ilert, we are open to new technologies and actively monitor market trends, incorporating the best offers into our workflow. The AI was not an exception. At first, we treated AI as a "better Stack Overflow". We started by using ChatGPT for writing code snippets. We composed several custom GPTs for writing unit tests and documentation. Then subscribed to GitHub Copilot for smart autocompletion. And then came Cursor. At first, we were quite skeptical since the tool had quite a lot of bugs, and the outcome was far from desired. But its ability to utilize the index of the code base was quite promising.

Phase 1: Isolated tasks

Initially, we used Cursor for isolated tasks. An engineer might ask ChatGPT to "implement a POST endpoint for the Incident entity." The scope was small, and the results were often hit-or-miss. In Rust, this often resulted in code that technically worked but violated Rust idioms or existing architecture in our codebase.

‍Phase 2: Living documentation & rule files

We realized that the AI was only as good as the context it could "see." But rather than pasting context into every chat, we shifted to a different approach: treat documentation and rules as first-class code artifacts.

We introduced two key practices:

• .cursor/rules/: Project-specific rule files (like rust-coding.mdc) that Cursor automatically loads into every interaction. These rules encode our engineering standards – error handling patterns, concurrency models, preferred crates – so the AI starts every task already "knowing" our conventions.
• Living documentation: Files like ARCHITECTURE.md that document decisions, not implementation details.

This phase was transformational because the context became persistent and automatic. No more copy-pasting. The AI simply inherited our engineering culture from the repository itself. We will share the exact rule definitions and file structures that power this later in the article.

Phase 3: Plan Mode – architecture before implementation

The introduction of Plan Mode marked the next evolution in our process, shifting our workflow from 'generate code and iterate' to 'design first, build once'.

Even with proper rules, letting an agent immediately jump to code often produces solutions that are technically correct but architecturally questionable – instant technical debt. To counter this, we implemented a strategy we call the "Rule of Three". For any significant change, we start with the Plan Mode, framing the prompt as follows:

Goal: Implement JWT middleware for the HTTP service.

1. Scan ARCHITECTURE.md and README.md for related parts of the service
2. Scan the codebase to fill gaps in understanding
3. Propose 3 distinct architectural approaches
4. For each, list pros/cons and impact on maintainability and performance

Combined with our rule files, Plan Mode ensures the AI generates code that aligns with our long-term vision. The specification and implementation stay in the same context, allowing us to review the architecture before a single line of code is written.

A note on plan entropy: We noticed a specific limitation in the current version of Cursor: if you iterate on a generated plan too many times, the model tends to "forget" constraints and useful solutions established in the first version. To prevent this context drift, we trigger Ask Mode for complex tasks before entering Plan Mode. This allows us to clarify requirements and edge cases upfront, resulting in a robust initial plan that requires fewer follow-up changes.

Phase 4: Multi-agent orchestration

The latest evolution moves beyond a single AI assistant to coordinated multi-agent systems. Instead of a single agent handling everything, we now orchestrate specialized sub-agents, each with specific tools and expertise.

The general pattern looks like: top-level Orchestrator agent coordinates sub-agents:

• Architect agent: Thinks on the problem from a high-level perspective, evaluating several solutions, may propose to make a POC before coming to a conclusion.
• Implementation agents: The builders executing the planned changes.
• Verification agents: Quality gatekeepers that ensure architectural standards, SOLID rules, proper testing, etc.

The power is in parallelization and specialization, effectively managing LLM's context and focus. Our early results show up to 2x faster iteration on complex tasks. We will explore this approach in detail in future articles. For now, let's start with the basics of AI-first development.

Context engineering: Why documentation is the new code

In the pre-AI era, documentation was often the last thing written and the first thing to go stale. A human developer could bridge the gap between an outdated README and the actual code. AI lacks that intuition. If your documentation contradicts your codebase, the AI will hallucinate a bridge between the two, resulting in code that appears correct but fails silently.

We realized that to make Cursor effective, we had to shift our mindset to "AI-first documentation."

Keeping the context window clean

As soon as you open a repository in Cursor, it indexes your code to understand the project context. If that index is filled with deprecated architectural decisions, the model's prediction quality degrades.

To combat this, we introduced a strict protocol: Documentation is a compile-time dependency.

• The ARCHITECTURE.md file: Every service includes this file. It doesn't list endpoints (which change often); it lists decisions. This gives the AI and newcomer developers the "why" behind the code.
• Standardized folder structure: We enforce a consistent layout across all Rust services (src/domain, src/infrastructure, src/api). Because every project looks identical, the AI can predict where a new file belongs with near 100% accuracy, reducing the need for us to specify paths in prompts.

The "Fix the Rule" loop

One of our most impactful productivity changes was how we handle AI errors. Previously, if Cursor generated code that violates our patterns, we would simply rewrite the code with follow-up commands. Now, we treat an AI failure as a documentation bug.

If Cursor generates code that struggles with the borrow checker or introduces a deadlock, we don't just fix the code – we patch the rule file or other context documentation. We ask: "What instruction was missing that allowed this mistake?" This turns every error into a permanent improvement for the entire team.

The secret sauce: ilert's Rust rules

Documentation provides the context, but Rules provide the constraints. Historically, the first approach was a single .cursorrules file at the repository root. Now we use several rule files in .cursor/rules/:

• Language-specific rules
• General programming best practices
• Refactoring rules
• Security analysis rules

Separation of files helps their maintenance, reduces LLM context, and facilitates their reuse across projects. For Rust, we use a dedicated rule file rust-coding.mdc (provided in the appendix). Here we will discuss several important points.

Key constraints we enforce

1. Modularity

• The rule: Keep main.rs to a minimum – only main() that loads config and calls runtime.block_on(run(...)). Put the async entry point in a dedicated run.rs. In lib.rs and mod.rs, only list modules. Group modules by domain (e.g., src/http, src/config, src/use_case_xx).
• The why: The thin main and lib modules facilitate testability and lifecycle reasoning. Domain folders and optional heavy dependencies (e.g., Kafka) ease integration testing without spinning up all the infrastructure.

2. The "Sync main" pattern

One of the main struggle points for Cursor with Rust is handling Rust lifetimes in asynchronous code. That leads it to produce a lot of unnecessary clones or mutexes, introducing accidental complexity.

• The rule: "Start the main() in sync mode, configure the application, then launch the Tokio runtime at the end."
• The why: This forces the AI to allocate long-lived resources (like database pools or config objects) in the stack frame of the main function before the Tokio runtime starts. Cursor can use a trick with Box::leak(Box::new(some_global)) to obtain 'static references, simplifying further lifetime management.

3. Data modeling & config

• The rule: Newtype IDs, serde for DTOs with camelCase, derive_builder for complex construction, validator on incoming DTOs. Use the config crate with YAML and environment overrides so all settings are validated at startup.
• The why: Consistent DTO representation and validation at the boundary hardens APIs, gives clear errors, and makes the AI generate the same patterns every time.

4. Error handling hygiene

• The rule: "Define one thiserror enum for use-case-wide business logic and use anyhow for generic errors."
• The why: It prevents the AI from creating too many custom error enums, while ensuring that business logic can benefit from matchable errors. We prefer From trait implementation over map_err(), and ban unwrap() in production code to facilitate clean and idiomatic Rust code.

5. Preventing async issues

• The rule: "Strictly forbid holding std::sync::Mutex across an .await point."
• The why: This is a classic Rust mistake that blocks the Tokio runtime. Syntactically, it looks correct and compiles.

6. Observability & external communication

• The rule: Use tracing with structured fields; use impl FromRequest for Claims for Actix auth; use reqwest with retries and observability middleware for outbound HTTP.
• The why: Sometimes Cursor may decide to use awc::Client, but it is not Send, making it harder to pass into tokio::spawn, for example. So we enforce reqwest-based client, along with its middlewares for production-grade error tolerance and observability.

The full rule file is in the Appendix at the end of this article. You can drop it into .cursor/rules/rust-coding.md and adapt it to your stack.

Experiment: No-rules vs. rules vs. planning

To quantify the impact of our workflow, we ran a controlled experiment. We gave Cursor the same prompt in three setups:

1. Naked: No rule files.
2. Guided: With rust-coding.mdc.
3. Architected: With rule file + Plan Mode.

Note on bias: We had to perform the "Naked" experiment on a fresh Cursor account. We found that Cursor's cloud-stored embeddings are sticky; even without rule files, it "remembered" our previous patterns from other sessions. A fresh account was necessary to see the true baseline performance. And here is another implication: if you expose Cursor to code with bad patterns, it may start repeating them in the new code it writes, so be careful what you 'feed' to Cursor. The prompt is intentionally quite vague to explore the bias in Cursor:

Implement the service in Rust:
- HTTP server based on Actix with JWT authentication
- Consume each Kafka topic defined in the YAML configuration
- On each message, make a POST call to /forward on the downstream service with hostname configured via environment variable
- Expose Kafka producer statistics at /stats

Scenario 1: The "Naked" cursor (no rules)

The generated project does not compile. We can notice that the Kafka consumer is spawned with tokio::spawn while passing in a shared awc::Client. awc::Client is not Send because it relies on Actix's single-threaded types (e.g., Rc), and tokio::spawn requires the future to be Send, so the compiler rejects the variable.

The problematic snippet:

pub fn spawn_consumers(config: Config, stats: SharedStats, client: awc::Client, downstream_host: String) {
    for topic in config.topics {
        let client = client.clone();
        tokio::spawn(async move {
            if let Err(e) = run_topic_consumer(..., client, ...).await {
                // handle error
            }
        });
    }
}

The code does not facilitate maintainability and extensibility:

• Modules consist of a flat set of files in /src with no domain grouping.
• Many modules have mixed functionality, such as message consumption and HTTP calls in kafka.rs, loading environment variables and setting up server routes in main.rs, etc.

Scenario 2: With a rule file, no plan mode

With the rule file active, the project successfully compiles. The Cursor chooses a Send-safe HTTP client backed by reqwest, with a separate facade for the HTTP client.

But we can notice that the modularity rules are not fully applied. For example, there is no module grouping by scope and functionality; all source files are in a single folder. More importantly, there are too many error enums: one in kafka.rs, another in config.rs, and so on. Cursor obviously misunderstood our rule.

So this way you get a working, compilable service, but the architecture is not as nice as it could be. It seems Cursor lacks project-wide thinking in this case. And here comes the Plan mode to the rescue.

Scenario 3: With a rule file and plan mode

With both the rule file in place and starting with a Cursor's Plan Mode, the generated service follows most of the rules consistently: HTTP client and configuration are in dedicated modules, modular layout with http/, forwarding/, server/, shared/ – suitable for testing and extension. The main.rs is quite clean:

fn main() -> anyhow::Result<()> {
    tracing_subscriber::fmt()
        .with_env_filter(EnvFilter::from_default_env())
        .init();

    let config_path = std::env::var("CONFIG_PATH").unwrap_or_else(|_| "config.yaml".into());
    let path = PathBuf::from(&config_path);
    let config = AppConfig::load(&path).context("load config")?;

    let runtime = tokio::runtime::Builder::new_multi_thread()
        .enable_all()
        .build()
        .context("create runtime")?;

    runtime.block_on(run(config))?;
    Ok(())
}

Outcomes: The shift from writers to reviewers

After years of refining Cursor workflows, the impact on our engineering velocity has been significant:

1. Streamlined onboarding

The most surprising benefit of a strict rule file and "AI-First Documentation" has been onboarding. When a new engineer joins ilert, they don't need to memorize all our coding guides before contributing. Cursor acts as a pair programmer who already knows our conventions.

2. From syntax to architecture

Our engineers now spend significantly less time writing boilerplate code, fighting the Rust borrow checker, or debugging obscure async runtime errors. The AI handles the "plumbing." This frees up our team to focus on thinking about complex business logic, paying more attention to details that matter. We have effectively shifted from being "Code Writers" to "Code Reviewers and Architects."

3. Predictability at scale

By treating our prompts and rules as code, we have achieved a level of consistency that is hard to maintain in a growing team. Spinning up new microservices and integrating them into our infrastructure landscape became obvious. The volume of code-review iterations decreased drastically.

Conclusion

If you are a Rust developer or an engineering leader looking to boost productivity, we encourage you to stop treating AI as a chatbot. Treat it as a junior engineer. Give it a handbook (.cursor/rules/), give it context (ARCHITECTURE.md), and force it to think before it types.

Based on our journey, here is our checklist for effective Cursor development:

1. Iterate on design, implement once: Start significant changes in Plan Mode, ask AI for different solutions. Use Ask Mode before Plan Mode in complex cases
2. Treat documentation as a dependency: Maintain AI-optimised (compact, structured, and non-contradictory) documentation with key decisions and constraints.
3. The "Fix the rules" loop: When the AI makes a mistake, don't just fix the code. Update your rules to prevent that class of error permanently.
4. Sanitize your context: Be careful with what you index. Use .cursorignore to exclude irrelevant information. If you feed Cursor a legacy codebase full of bad patterns, it will replicate them.

The tools are ready. It's up to us to build the future with them.

Appendix: ilert's Rust rules

The complete rust-coding.mdc we use. Feel free to copy and adapt as needed.

---
description: "ilert's Rust coding rules"
globs: ["src/**/*.rs"]
alwaysApply: true
---

# Modularity
- Group modules by business functionality: `src/payments`, users. Common utilities go into `src/shared`
- In lib.rs or mod.rs only list modules	
- Keep main.rs concise: it should contain only main() that calls configuration functions from other modules and launches the runtime
- Define run.rs with run() that is the entry point of the async runtime
- Heavy dependencies like Kafka producers should be optional, optimized for testing
- Separate boundaries under facades like Client classes for downstream HTTP services

# Data Modeling
- Newtype Pattern: Wrap primitive types for entity IDs (e.g., `#[derive(PartialEq, Eq, Hash, Copy, Clone)] struct UserId(u64);`)
- Annotate DTO structs for JSON requests and responses with `#[derive(Debug, Clone, Deserialize, Serialize)]`, `#[serde(rename_all = "camelCase")]`
- Annotate enums with `#[strum(serialize_all = "SCREAMING_SNAKE_CASE")]` and `#[derive(Clone, Display, Debug)]`, `#[serde(rename_all = "SCREAMING_SNAKE_CASE")]`
- For complex object construction, utilize `derive_builder` with `#[builder(setter(into))]`
- Use `validator` (`#[derive(Validate)]`) on incoming DTOs

## Concurrency
- Start the main() in sync mode (no #[actix_web::main]), configure the application, then launch the async runtime at the end with `runtime.block_on(run(...))`
- Pass complex variables initialized in main() as 'static obtaining the reference with `Box::leak(Box::new(something))`
- Wrap shared writable state with `tokio::sync::RwLock` (`Arc<RwLock>`), locking for the shortest period of time
- If the shared writable state requires change notification, use `tokio::sync::watch`
- Strictly forbid holding `std::sync::Mutex` or `std::sync::RwLock` across an `.await` point
- Handle graceful job cancellation and timeouts using `tokio::select!`
- For long-term async background jobs, like message consumers, use `&'static self` and initialize the instance before the launch of the async runtime

# Error Handling
- Use descriptive error types using `thiserror` v2, preserving source via `#[from]` or `#[source]`. Fall back to `anyhow` for short-scoped generic errors that are later mapped to `thiserror`; use `.context()`
- Avoid `map_err()` — instead, implement the `From` trait for the target error type
- Strictly avoid unwrap() in production code. But `.context()` for critical errors during application launch is fine

# Observability
- Use `tracing` for logging and tracing, attaching key-value pairs with important context
- Check the log level before dumping complex debug data with `if tracing::enabled!(tracing::Level::DEBUG)`

# External Communication
- For authentication in Actix use `impl FromRequest for Claims`
- Use middlewares for observability (`reqwest-tracing` for clients, custom for servers)
- Utilize timeouts and retries with backoff for outgoing requests (`reqwest-retry`)

# Config and Utilities
- Use `config` v0.15 and YAML configurations, with flexible environment overrides by `.add_source(Environment::default()).set_override_option("some.deep.key", std::env::var("CUSTOM_VAR").ok())`
- Use `itertools` to ease iterator transformations (`use itertools::Itertools; iter.join(", "); iter.chunks(10); iter.unique()`)
- Avoid adding comments, keep existing

ilert now supports a native WhaTap integration, connecting AI-native observability with AI-first incident management in a seamless workflow. This integration allows DevOps, SRE, and IT teams to move instantly from detection to resolution – cutting through alert noise, improving coordination, and dramatically reducing MTTR in even the most complex IT environments.

What is WhaTap?

WhaTap is an AI-native observability platform that provides unified monitoring across servers, applications, databases, and Kubernetes, all in a single SaaS platform. Its advanced data integration and correlation analysis technologies give teams real-time visibility into system issues and help identify root causes quickly.

Currently, WhaTap serves over 1,200 customers across domestic and international markets and is expanding globally, including Japan, Southeast Asia, and the United States.

Why connect WhaTap to ilert?

The ilert WhaTap integration transforms deep observability into immediate action. By linking WhaTap’s unified monitoring with ilert’s AI-first incident management platform, DevOps and IT operations teams can fully automate their incident response. As soon as WhaTap detects anomalies or performance issues in Kubernetes environments or databases, ilert instantly alerts the right on-call engineer via voice, SMS, or mobile push notifications. 

The result is a seamless transition from detection to resolution. ilert enhances WhaTap alerts with on-call schedules, automated escalations, and AI-assisted incident communication, enabling faster coordination and clearer ownership. Together, WhaTap’s deep observability and ilert’s powerful response engine help SREs and IT teams reduce downtime, improve collaboration, and dramatically cut MTTR, even in highly complex IT environments.

How to set up the integration?

Follow these simple steps to connect WhaTap to ilert:

1. In ilert:
   
   • Go to Alert Sources → create a new alert source for WhaTap
   • Name it, assign teams, choose an escalation policy, and select alert grouping
   • Finish setup to generate a webhook URL
2. In WhaTap:
   
   • Open the project for alerts → go to Alert → Notifications
   • Add a 3rd party plugin → choose Webhook JSON
   • Paste the ilert webhook URL and register the webhook
3. Start receiving alerts:
   
   • WhaTap events will now flow directly into ilert, triggering automated incident workflows

For a full step-by-step guide, visit docs.ilert.com. If you encounter any issues, our support team is ready to help at support@ilert.com.

Everyone wants autonomous incident response. Most teams are building it wrong.

‍

The ultimate goal of autonomy in SRE and DevOps is the capacity of a system to not only detect incidents but to resolve them independently through intelligent self-regulation. However, true autonomy isn't born from automating random, isolated tasks. It requires a stable foundation: a Reference Architecture.

‍

This blueprint serves as the "immune system" of your infrastructure, ensuring that self-healing processes don't act erratically but instead operate within clearly defined guardrails. Without these principles, autonomy is a liability, like a self-driving car without sensors to monitor the road.

‍

The reality is simple: If your autonomy strategy is built on scripts, runbooks, and reactive automation, you don’t have autonomy, you have faster failure.

‍

In this article, we decode how to bridge the gap between manual scripting and a truly agentic strategy. We will show you why a solid architecture is the essential prerequisite for ensuring that AI-driven approaches can function safely and effectively.

• Core Principles: The theoretical foundations supporting every reference architecture.
• Building Blocks of Autonomy: The components where these principles must be applied to ensure safety.
• Incident Response: Why failure response must be hardcoded into the very heart of the architecture.
• Cloud-Native & Scaling: How modern cloud technologies redefine the implementation landscape.

Core principles of reference architecture

A reference architecture is far more than a mere recommendation or a static diagram. It is the distilled knowledge of countless failure modes and best practices. Think of it as a "constitution" for your infrastructure: it dictates how components must behave so that the overall system remains autonomously operational even under extreme stress.

‍

Without these principles, autonomy becomes inherently unsafe, capable of acting quickly, but without the constraints needed to prevent systemic damage.

Here are the pillars upon which your autonomous strategy must rest:

‍

1. Modularity: isolate instead of escalate

‍

Autonomy only works if problems remain localized. By breaking down complex monoliths into independent, modular components, you ensure that an autonomous healing process in one area doesn't accidentally destabilize the entire system. Modularity is the firewall of your autonomy.

‍

2. Observability: more than just monitoring

‍

A system can only regulate itself if it understands its own state. This goes far beyond basic dashboards or isolated signals. True observability comes from correlating logs, metrics, and traces to build a complete, real-time picture of what’s happening across the system, enabling autonomous agents to reason about behavior, dependencies, and impact instead of reacting blindly to surface-level signals.

‍

3. Resilience: design for failure

‍

In an autonomous world, a failure is not an exception but a statistical certainty. A solid reference architecture anticipates outages through redundancy and failover mechanisms. The goal is graceful degradation: the system learns to "downshift" controlledly during partial failures instead of failing completely.

‍

4. Scalability: elasticity as a reflex

‍

True autonomy means the system reacts to load spikes before the user even notices a delay. The architecture must be designed so that resources can "breathe" elastically and without manual intervention – a reflex-like expansion and contraction based on demand.

These principles form the guardrails we mentioned in the introduction. They ensure that your system’s "intelligence" has a solid data foundation and can execute its corrections safely.

Architectural patterns for safe autonomy

For a system to make independent decisions, the architecture must be built to support feedback loops and isolate faults. These patterns form the mechanical skeleton of your autonomous operations.

‍

1. Declarative infrastructure (GitOps & IaC)

‍

In an autonomous world, code is the "Single Source of Truth." With GitOps, you don't describe how to do something, but rather what the target state should be.

‍

An autonomous controller constantly compares this target state with reality. If the system deviates (Configuration Drift), it corrects itself. GitOps is essentially the memory of your system, ensuring it always finds its way back to a healthy state.

‍

2. Service meshes: the intelligent nervous system

‍

Microservices alone are complex to manage. A Service Mesh adds a control plane over your services.

‍

It enables "traffic shifting" without code changes. If a new version of a service produces errors, the system can autonomously shift traffic back to the old, stable version in milliseconds. It acts as a reflex center that reacts immediately when inter-service communication "feels pain."

‍

3. Circuit breakers & bulkheads: the emergency fuses

‍

These patterns are borrowed from electrical engineering and shipbuilding. A Circuit Breaker cuts the connection to an overloaded service, while Bulkheads isolate resources so that a leak in one area doesn't sink the entire ship.

‍

They prevent cascading failures. An autonomous agent can perform "healing experiments" within a bulkhead without risking a small error taking down the entire data center.

‍

4. Automated rollbacks & canary deployments

‍

The risk of change is minimized through incremental introduction. A Canary Deployment rolls out updates to only 1% of users initially.

‍

The system takes on the role of the quality auditor. It analyzes the error rate of the new version compared to the old one. If the metrics are poor, the system autonomously aborts the deployment. Here, autonomy protects the system from human error during a release.

Bridging the gap: From static defense to active response

These architectural patterns are the essential tools for stability, but on their own, they are reactive. A Circuit Breaker can stop a fire from spreading, and a Service Mesh can reroute traffic, but they don't necessarily "solve" the underlying crisis.

To move from a system that merely survives failure to one that resolves it, we must change how we view the incident lifecycle.

‍

This is where the transition to true autonomy happens.

Incident management embedded in architecture

Incident response can no longer exist as a separate operational layer; it must be treated as a primary architectural citizen. Autonomy is only as reliable as the mechanisms that detect and react when things go wrong.

By embedding detection, alerting, and remediation directly into the reference architecture, organizations ensure that failure handling remains consistent across all services. This moves the needle from manual firefighting toward a system that understands and actively manages its own health.

‍

In practice, this means integrating paging platforms and automated alerting hooks directly into deployment manifests. Modern architectures leverage automated runbooks that can be triggered by specific system events to resolve routine issues like memory leaks or disk saturation without human intervention.

‍

Furthermore, incorporating chaos engineering into the architectural lifecycle allows teams to intentionally inject failure. This validates that automated response mechanisms work as expected under real-world stress, ensuring a single incident remains isolated and does not escalate into a systemic outage.

‍

​​While embedding runbooks into individual services works for small environments, true autonomy requires a platform that can coordinate these responses across thousands of nodes. This is where the blueprint evolves from a set of patterns into a living, breathing ecosystem.

Scaling autonomy with cloud-native reference architecture

‍

The rise of cloud-native technologies has fundamentally changed the blueprint for scalable autonomy. Kubernetes and its ecosystem take significant operational toil off teams through controllers and reconciliation loops, providing the "brain" that constantly steers the system back to its desired state. However, this also introduces new layers of complexity regarding coordination and security.

‍

Achieving autonomy at scale requires more than just deploying containers; it requires a hardened infrastructure layer capable of managing its own state in distributed environments.

‍

A robust cloud-native reference architecture focuses heavily on the guardrails of autonomy. This includes implementing fine-grained Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) and admission controllers to define exactly what automated agents are permitted to do within the cluster. Policy-enforcement layers ensure the system remains compliant even as it self-heals.

‍

Finally, the reliability of these autonomous systems rests on a foundation of distributed consensus to maintain a "source of truth" that allows stateful applications to recover seamlessly across availability zones.

Conclusion: Building the foundation for agentic SRE

A Reference Architecture is more than a static diagram, it defines how your infrastructure is allowed to behave under stress. By codifying modularity, resilience, and scalability into your core design, you bridge the gap between manual scripts and a truly agentic strategy. However, the architecture is only the foundation. To fully realize a "lights-out" operational model, you must orchestrate the intelligence that sits atop it.

‍

Don't leave your system's autonomy to chance. Ready to turn your architectural blueprint into an active defense? Download ilert’s Agentic Incident Management Guide to see how architecture and AI come together to create incident response that’s safe, scalable, and operationally sound.