Optimize attention aware alerting portfolio

What it's for

Turns cooldown, deduplication and severity routing into an explicit attention-capacity frontier so Gitrevio can add useful alerts without silently overwhelming the people expected to act.

What you give it

Inputs split into evidence read from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.

{
  "alert_policy_options": [
    {
      "alert_risk_class_id": "delivery-risk",
      "available_scenario_ids": [
        "base",
        "stress"
      ],
      "common_loss_reduction": 0,
      "dependency_option_ids": [],
      "duplicate_alert_multiplier_scenarios": [
        1.2,
        1.4
      ],
      "evidence_verified": true,
      "exclusion_option_ids": [],
      "false_alert_interruption_cost": 100,
      "false_positive_probability_scenarios": [
        0.15,
        0.2
      ],
      "id": "current",
      "implementation_cost": 0,
      "is_current_state": true,
      "operating_cost_scenarios": [
        500,
        600
      ],
      "resource_demand": {
        "engineering": 0
      },
      "satisfied_control_ids": [
        "tenant-scope"
      ],
      "sensitivity_scenarios": [
        0.75,
        0.7
      ],
      "severity_id": "p2"
    },
    {
      "alert_risk_class_id": "delivery-risk",
      "available_scenario_ids": [
        "base",

What you get back

This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.

{
  "baseline_current_state": {
    "class_metrics": [
      {
        "alert_risk_class_id": "delivery-risk",
        "expected_false_alert_cost": 52.82,
        "expected_missed_conditions": 0.173,
        "maximum_queue_wait_minutes": 5.4411,
        "option_id": "current"
      }
    ],
    "conditional_value_at_risk": 102131.6,
    "expected_false_alert_cost": 52.82,
    "expected_loss": 7430,
    "expected_operating_cost": 519.8,
    "expected_protected_value": 4089,
    "implementation_cost": 0,
    "option_ids": [
      "current"
    ],
    "queue_metrics": {
      "engineering-leads": {
        "maximum_utilization": 0.45,
        "maximum_wait_minutes": 5.4411
      }
    },
    "resource_use": {
      "engineering": 0
    },
    "risk_adjusted_score": -29446.52,
    "value_at_risk": 50140
  },
  "constraints": {
    "implementation_budget": 10000,
    "resource_capacities": {
      "engineering": 2
    },
    "risk_aversion": 0.25
  },
  "decision": "optimize",
  "failed_gates": [],
  "guardrails": [
    "Queueing capacity, service rates, policy effects, costs and loss are organization-owned inputs that require prospective validation; vendor defaults and generic benchmarks are not evidence.",
    "The optimizer selects only among supplied aggregate alert policies and never sends, suppresses or escalates an alert automatically.",

How it works

Constrained optimization — Pick the best feasible option under real limits — budget, headcount, dependencies, capacity — rather than ranking a list and hoping it fits.

1. 1 Freeze aggregate risk classes, material-condition Beta priors, coherent opportunity/value/loss scenarios, response queues and independently tested candidate alert policies.
2. 2 For each portfolio, aggregate policy-induced true/false/duplicate arrivals into finite M/M/c queues; reject unstable utilization or response-time violations before simulating material conditions, time-decayed protection, missed loss, false-alert interruption and unique common incidents.
3. 3 Enforce sensitivity, false-positive, control, severity, availability, relation, budget and resource constraints; compare current state and return an expected-loss/protected-value Pareto frontier using exact or disclosed deterministic beam search.

Before you trust it

Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.

Calibrating it to your org

Calibration workflow

1. 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
2. 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
3. 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
4. 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
5. 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
6. 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.

Call it from your AI

You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 18 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.

gitrevio_capabilities_search
  { "q": "choose one governed alert policy per" }
  → finds "optimize_attention_aware_alerting_portfolio"

gitrevio_capability_describe
  { "capability_id": "optimize_attention_aware_alerting_portfolio" }
  → returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "optimize_attention_aware_alerting_portfolio", "arguments": { ... } }
  → returns the result shown above

Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.

Related tools

See every tool in Quality, incidents & reliability →