Groove is now Helply.

How we adopted agentic support

From manual support and Claude workflows to building Helply and running our own support operation with AI agents.

68%
Faster median first response18.2 → 5.8 min
64%
Conversations with substantive AI-agent work
40%
Fewer escalations to Product & Engineering
82%
Responses within our one-hour targetup from 61%

This isn't a story about using AI to reduce headcount

It's about why we don't need to add new headcount for the next 1,000 customers we add.

For your company, the numbers may be different, but the underlying thesis is the same:

If AI agents could take on more of the investigation and execution, how much more work could your support team handle?

For most of the history of customer support, the answer was constrained by a simple relationship.

For most of customer support's history

More customersMore support team members

We've spent 14 years building customer support software, and everything we learned building Groove taught us that math well. Agentic Support is what begins to break it.

Before AI agents, the hard part wasn't writing the reply

At its peak, our support team had six full-time people helping 1,300 customers.

We had years of documentation, saved replies, automations, a knowledge base, and people who knew the product inside and out.

But a complicated ticket was still largely manual.

A customer sends a complicated ticket
The hidden workBefore a single word is written
  1. Understand the request

    Read the conversation and figure out what the customer actually needs.

  2. Gather customer context

    Identify the customer, their account, and relevant history.

  3. Search previous conversations

    Find similar issues and see how they were handled before.

  4. Search the knowledge base

    Find the documentation that might help explain or resolve the issue.

  5. Investigate the account

    Check account and product data to understand what's actually happening.

  6. Bring in engineering when needed

    Confirm bugs, technical issues, or edge cases.

  7. Decide what to do

    Put all of that context together and determine the right resolution.

The visible work

Write the reply

Seven steps of investigation before a single word of the reply.
The reply might take a couple of minutes to write. Figuring out what it should say was where most of the work happened.

That's why simply using AI to write faster wasn't enough.

First, we tried adding AI to the help desk we already had

Our customers were asking for AI, so we started where you'd expect: adding AI features to Groove.

We built tools to draft responses, summarize conversations, and help agents work faster.

They were useful.

But the workflow hadn't really changed.

HumanCustomer question
HumanHuman investigates
AIAI assists
HumanHuman acts
HumanCustomer gets help
AI made individual steps faster. A human still had to orchestrate the work.
AI was making individual steps faster. It wasn't changing who had to orchestrate the work.

So we started experimenting with something different inside our own support operation.

Instead of asking how AI could help write the answer, we wanted to know how much of the investigation itself it could handle.

That's when we started using Claude.

Then we started using Claude

We started using Claude for straightforward support questions. Then, as MCP became more useful, we connected it to the systems our team normally searched by hand.

Claude could search customer conversations and our Groove Knowledge Base, check Linear for known bugs and feature requests, look at account and billing information, and access internal product data and logs.

We started turning the investigations our best support people already knew how to do into repeatable Claude workflows. Instead of prompting from scratch, we could give Claude a defined process: what to search, which systems to check, what information mattered, and how to reason through the problem.

It was a meaningful improvement.

We estimated Claude made each support person about 22% more efficient, saving roughly eight hours per person per week.

But it wasn't a reliable operating system for support:

Costs scaled with usage

Across our support operation, we were on pace to spend roughly $48,000 per year running these Claude workflows. A complicated investigation could take up to 25 minutes and cost as much as $8.

Workflows were difficult to share and maintain

Everyone needed the right Claude setup, permissions, integrations, and internal access. And when our product or processes changed, the people closest to support couldn't always update the workflows themselves.

Every investigation started from scratch

Claude repeatedly searched the same conversations, account data, knowledge, product information, and internal systems.

Humans still had to run everything

Someone still had to open the ticket, decide what Claude should do, trigger the workflow, wait, review the result, and then go back to the conversation.

Claude made the thinking faster. Humans were still orchestrating the work.

The more capable the models became, the clearer the gap became. Context couldn't depend on a human finding it first. Processes couldn't live only in people's heads. And agents couldn't wait for someone to tell them when to start.

We didn't need another AI feature. We needed to rethink the support platform around AI agents from the beginning.

Customer data was everywhere

Claude also exposed another problem.

The information needed to resolve a conversation rarely lived in one place.

To resolve one ticket

Conversations

Groove

Knowledge

Groove Knowledge Base

Billing

Stripe

Internal context

Slack

Product issues

Linear

Account data

Groove + internal systems

Product usage

Internal product data

The context for a single ticket was scattered across seven systems.

All of the information usually existed somewhere. The hard part was finding it, understanding what mattered, and assembling it into a picture of what was actually happening.

The problem wasn't intelligence. It was context.

What if our team could direct the work instead?

We had spent 14 years building support software around a world where people executed nearly every step.

Now the technology was changing.

What if our support team didn't have to personally execute every step between a customer question and a resolution?

What if agents could gather the context, search our knowledge, investigate the account, follow our processes, take approved actions, and bring in a human when judgment was needed?

Our team would still own the customer experience.

They'd just spend less time executing every step and more time deciding what should happen next.

We could keep retrofitting AI into the model we'd built years ago.

Or we could rebuild the platform around the assumption that humans and AI agents would work together from the start.

We chose to rebuild it.

Claude had given us the reasoning engine.

What we needed was the system around it:

  • Persistent context
  • Shared Skills
  • Editable Guidelines
  • Repeatable Processes
  • Integrations
  • Actions
  • Permissions
  • Escalation rules
  • Agents that could start working automatically

That became Helply.

Agentic AI moves support teams from doing the work to directing it.

Then we put Helply to work in our own support operation

Keep reading

See how we put it into practice.

Continue reading to see how agents investigate incoming tickets, take approved actions, and bring in people when needed. The rest of the case study covers:

  • How we decide when agents resolve, collaborate, or escalate.
  • How we turn our team’s knowledge into guidelines, skills, and processes.
  • What changed across Support, Product, and Engineering.

We’ll email you the full report and occasional updates. Unsubscribe anytime.

See what Agentic Support could look like for your team.

Helply is the AI-native customer support platform built from more than a decade of experience building support software, and everything we've learned running Agentic Support inside our own operation.