Cura started inside a working support queue, because the person building it was the person the cases belonged to.
Most support automation is built on the assumption that the hard part is writing the reply. Spend a week in a real L1 queue and it's obvious that it isn't. The hard part is everything before the reply: reading the thread, working out who actually owes the next message, digging through internal notes for a handover that never landed, and finding the three prior cases where someone already answered this exact question.
That work is slow, invisible, and where things get missed. It's also the part a well-built agent is genuinely good at — as long as it cites what it found and hands the judgement call back to a person. So that's what Cura does, and deliberately all it does.
The first version was measured against live cases in a real queue, with every mistake written down and dated. That log is still how the product gets better, and it's why nothing on this site claims the agent is always right.
The pilot that became Cura ran against a working enterprise support queue: 21 drafts across 16 cases, every mistake logged, and zero replies that reached a customer without a human reading them first.
Read the case studyThe agent prepares. A person judges.
Review is the default on every plan, and auto-reply only ever fires on criteria you set. We would rather sell a smaller claim we can keep than a bigger one that needs a caveat.
Every claim names its source.
A case number, a ticket, a page that was actually loaded. If a document failed to fetch, the draft doesn't cite it. Auditable beats confident.
Retrieval beats a better writer.
Every real improvement in the pilot came from finding something the agent had missed — phrase search over correspondence, escalation records on child cases, internal docs. None came from nicer prose.
We write down every mistake.
Dated, with the reasoning that produced it. A vendor who can't show you their failure log hasn't measured one.
Read-only until you say otherwise.
Cura holds credentials that could write to your systems and doesn't use them. Scope is the smallest thing that works.
The questions your security team will ask, answered before they have to ask them.
Security and data-protection questions answered on request. Data residency and retention terms are set per contract — ask and we'll put them in writing.
Small and deliberately so. You'll talk to the person building it.
Six years of enterprise software implementation and technical support across financial services, risk and legal tech. The work behind Cura is the work he does daily: onboarding clients onto cloud platforms, integrating identity and SSO, owning root-cause analysis on critical incidents, and building the playbooks that stop the same case being solved twice.
Cura came out of that queue. It was measured on real cases, with every mistake logged, before it was ever described as a product.
LinkedInRemoving the last manual seam — a reviewer should be able to approve or reject from the channel where the case is already being discussed.
The retrieval layer is already parallel. Raising concurrency only pays off if review stays cheap, so the two are planned together.
Each new support domain needs its own index and pattern library. We'd rather say "not yet" than ship a ranker that can't see the terms that matter.
Questions, security review, or a demo on our sandbox — same inbox either way. hello@cura.support
Book a demoNo open roles right now. If you've run a front-line queue and have opinions about why automation usually fails there, write anyway.