Internal Agents Map

Inspect

Inspect runs coding tasks in prepared remote environments at Ramp. It can run tests, read telemetry and feature flags, and inspect the frontend. Ramp also builds other agents on its platform, including agents that monitor production and propose fixes.

Company
Ramp
Approach type
Agent
Human involvement
Drafts reviewed
Interfaces
Slack, Web, Chrome extension, Github
Deployment stage
Scaled
Evidence strength
Mixed
Entry reviewed
Copy as MDAsk ChatGPT

How it works

Slack bug report to raised pull request.

Fix a bug from a Slack thread

An @inspect mention in Slack reads the thread context, works in its sandbox, and raises a pull request with the fix[Source 2, Source 5]

Where people stay involved

People review, approve, or guide the agent’s work here.

Reported: Sessions open pull requests with the user token, self-approval is blocked, and production merges keep human review; multiplayer sessions add live human collaboration.

  • Supervision level

    Work-product review

    A person reviews the draft or implementation.

    Level 3 of 5

    • Inspect coding task → reviewed production merge[Source 1]

How supervision levels work

Implementation details

Model
All frontier models, MCPs, custom tools, skills[Source 1]
Harness
OpenCode (server-first) as the agent runtime; a plugin blocks writes until sync completes; expanded into production monitoring and self-maintenance; Inspect itself is built with React/Vite, Cloudflare Durable Objects, SQLite, and the Cloudflare Agents SDK[Source 1]
Sandbox
Modal sandboxes; per-repo images rebuilt every 30 min from snapshots; warm-on-keystroke; a pool of warm sandboxes[Source 1]Fully documented: Modal images rebuilt every 30 minutes, snapshots, warm-on-keystroke, and a warm pool.
Tool access
Wired into Sentry, Datadog, LaunchDarkly, Braintrust, GitHub, Slack, Buildkite; monitors production, triages issues, proposes fixes; debugging queries a sanitized read-only production DB replica and Snowflake[Source 1]
Knowledge
Skills that encode how Ramp ships; repo images with the full dev env (Vite, Postgres, Redis, RabbitMQ, Temporal, Chromium, VS Code Server)[Source 1]
Context management
Sandbox snapshots persist session state for follow-ups, and every client change syncs to the session[Source 1]
Credentials
GitHub auth per user; the sandbox pushes the branch, an API opens the PR with the user's token (no self-approval); production merges retain human review[Source 1]
Interfaces
  • slack
  • web
  • chrome-extension
  • github
[Source 1]

Mechanisms

Modal sandbox + snapshots

Repository images and snapshots prepare dependencies and build state before sessions start[Source 1]

OpenCode runtime

OpenCode runs as a server with a typed SDK and plugin interfaces[Source 1]

Multiplayer sessions

Any number of people in one session; each change attributed to its author[Source 1]

Validation and failure handling

Verify its own changes

Inspect runs tests, reviews telemetry and feature flags for backend changes, and visually verifies frontend changes with screenshots and live previews[Source 1, Source 5]

Reported observations

These results come from the sources. Notes below each result explain what it covers and any reported limits.

Headline claim

75% of Ramp's merged PRs raised by Inspect sessions (May 2026)[Source 5]

Reported by
Ramp
Scope
Ramp merged PRs raised by Inspect sessions by May 2026
Denominator
Merged Ramp pull requests

Observed in May 2026

About this result
Category
Adoption output
Evidence type
Reported measurement
What it covers
Ramp merged PRs raised by Inspect sessions by May 2026
Key observation

Around 60% of Ramp PRs authored by Inspect by January 2026[Source 5]

Reported by
Ramp
Scope
Ramp PRs authored by Inspect by January 2026
Denominator
Ramp pull requests in the source adoption history

Observed in January 2026

About this result
Category
Adoption output
Evidence type
Reported measurement
What it covers
Ramp PRs authored by Inspect in the adoption history through January 2026
Key observation

Around 30% of merged frontend and backend PRs in the earlier first-party report, after a couple of months of adoption[Source 1]

Reported by
Ramp
Scope
Merged PRs in Ramp frontend and backend repositories after the first couple of months of adoption
Denominator
Merged PRs in frontend and backend repositories
About this result
Category
Adoption output
Evidence type
Reported measurement
What it covers
Merged PRs in Ramp frontend and backend repositories in the earlier first-party report
Key observation

Around 90% of PRs merged into the Inspect repository come from Inspect sessions in the later interview report[Source 5]

Reported by
Ramp
Scope
PRs merged into the Inspect repository
Denominator
Merged PRs in the Inspect repository
About this result
Category
Adoption output
Evidence type
Reported measurement
What it covers
PRs merged into the Inspect repository itself, as distinct from all Ramp PRs
Key observation

One million total Inspect sessions crossed in July 2026[Source 5]

Reported by
Ramp
Scope
Cumulative Inspect sessions crossing the million mark in July 2026

The source does not report the denominator of this figure.

Observed in July 2026

About this result
Category
Adoption output
Evidence type
Reported measurement
What it covers
Cumulative Inspect sessions since launch, crossing one million in July 2026
Key observation

Under 5 seconds to spin up a fully provisioned remote dev environment[Source 5]

Reported by
Ramp
Scope
Provisioning a fully configured remote development environment

The source does not report the denominator of this figure.

About this result
Category
Cost latency
Evidence type
Reported measurement
What it covers
Spin-up time of a fully provisioned remote development environment
Key observation

Inspect underpins internal agents including ReviewBuddy, Oncall Assistant, Testo, Ramp Research, Voice of the Customer, and error automations[Source 5]

Examples of internal agents built on Inspect

About this result
Category
Implementation scale
Evidence type
Qualitative
What it covers
Named internal agents built on the Inspect platform, from ReviewBuddy to error automations
Key observation

150+ engineers contributed to the Inspect codebase in the later interview report[Source 5]

Reported by
Ramp
Scope
Engineers who contributed to the Inspect codebase in the later interview report

The source does not report the denominator of this figure.

About this result
Category
Implementation scale
Evidence type
Reported measurement
What it covers
Engineers who contributed to the Inspect codebase
Key observation

5.5-person Inspect team (four engineers, a director, and a part-time PM)[Source 5]

Reported by
Ramp
Scope
Inspect team staffing: four engineers, one director, and a part-time PM

The source does not report the denominator of this figure.

About this result
Category
Implementation scale
Evidence type
Reported measurement
What it covers
Inspect team staffing of four engineers, a director, and a part-time PM
Key observation

More than 80% of Inspect is written in Inspect sessions[Source 5]

Reported by
Ramp
Scope
Inspect code written in Inspect sessions; distinct from merged PR share
Denominator
Inspect code; the source does not define a code-volume counting method
About this result
Category
Implementation scale
Evidence type
Reported measurement
What it covers
Share of the Inspect codebase written in Inspect sessions
Key observation

Reported opinion: Design goal: session speed should be limited only by model-provider time-to-first-token[Source 1]

Target session startup speed, excluding precompleted cloning and installation

About this result
Category
Cost latency
Evidence type
Target
What it covers
Session startup speed relative to model-provider time-to-first-token

Lessons

Reported opinion: Ramp argues that controlling an internal tool lets it tailor the system to its own codebase.[Source 1]

Reported opinion: Ramp credits visible use in shared channels with helping Inspect spread without a usage mandate.[Source 1]

Reported opinion: Ramp values remote agent sessions for concurrent work without tying up a developer's laptop.[Source 1]

Ramp builds repository images ahead of a request, then synchronizes recent code when a session starts.[Source 1]

Inspect adoption grew after Ramp changed it from a Chrome extension into a centrally configured remote development environment.[Source 5]

Back to agents
Improve this record

Give your coding agent the context and instructions to prepare a source-backed update.

Paste the prompt into your coding agent, then describe the correction or add a public source.

Preview prompt

Sources and research details

Citations link to the original publisher. Each source also keeps a preserved copy in the repository, so a changed or removed page stays checkable.

  1. Why We Built Our Own Background Agent (Inspect)https://engineering.ramp.com/post/why-we-built-our-background-agentEngineering blog · First party · Last source verification: 2026-08-31
  2. Ramp x Linear (75% of merged PRs via Inspect)https://linear.app/customers/rampCase study · First party · Last source verification: 2026-08-31
  3. Hacker News project discussion inspired by Ramp Inspecthttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48042123Hn thread · Community · Last source verification: 2026-08-31
  4. Why We Built Our Own Background Agent (Inspect) (Ramp Builders URL)https://builders.ramp.com/post/why-we-built-our-background-agentEngineering blog · First party · Last source verification: 2026-08-31
  5. Why Ramp built its own in-house coding agent, Inspecthttps://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/why-ramp-built-inspectNews · Independent secondary · Last source verification: 2026-08-31
Question coverage and scope
purpose
Reported
workflow
Reported: The captures document the @inspect Slack bugfix run end to end; larger builds are kicked off the same way but the thread fix is the one complete run.
human involvement
Reported: Sessions open pull requests with the user token, self-approval is blocked, and production merges keep human review; multiplayer sessions add live human collaboration.
implementation
Reported
validation
Reported
observations
Reported
lessons
Reported
Research details for every claim on this page
  1. Summary
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  2. Headline claim
    Statement type
    Metric
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
    Reported by
    Ramp
    Scope
    Ramp merged PRs raised by Inspect sessions by May 2026
    Denominator
    Merged Ramp pull requests
    Method
    Not reported
    Observation date
    2026-05
  3. Sandbox
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  4. Harness
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  5. Model
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  6. Interfaces
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  7. Tool access
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  8. Knowledge
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  9. Context management
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  10. Credentials
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  11. Modal sandbox + snapshots
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  12. OpenCode runtime
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  13. Multiplayer sessions
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  14. Fix a bug from a Slack thread
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  15. Verify its own changes
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
  16. Key observation
    Statement type
    Metric
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
    Reported by
    Ramp
    Scope
    Ramp PRs authored by Inspect by January 2026
    Denominator
    Ramp pull requests in the source adoption history
    Method
    Not reported
    Observation date
    2026-01
  17. Key observation

    75% of merged PRs raised by Inspect sessions (May 2026)

    Duplicate representation of Headline claim. Same 75% merged-PR share, same May 2026 period, and the same merged-PR denominator; adds nothing the headline lacks.

    Statement type
    Metric
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
    Reported by
    Ramp
    Scope
    Ramp merged PRs raised by Inspect sessions by May 2026
    Denominator
    Merged Ramp pull requests
    Method
    Not reported
    Observation date
    2026-05
  18. Key observation
    Statement type
    Metric
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
    Reported by
    Ramp
    Scope
    Merged PRs in Ramp frontend and backend repositories after the first couple of months of adoption
    Denominator
    Merged PRs in frontend and backend repositories
    Method
    Not reported
    Observation date
    Not reported
  19. Key observation
    Statement type
    Metric
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
    Reported by
    Ramp
    Scope
    PRs merged into the Inspect repository
    Denominator
    Merged PRs in the Inspect repository
    Method
    Not reported
    Observation date
    Not reported
  20. Key observation
    Statement type
    Metric
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
    Reported by
    Ramp
    Scope
    Cumulative Inspect sessions crossing the million mark in July 2026
    Denominator
    Not reported
    Method
    Not reported
    Observation date
    2026-07
  21. Key observation
    Statement type
    Metric
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
    Reported by
    Ramp
    Scope
    Provisioning a fully configured remote development environment
    Denominator
    Not reported
    Method
    Not reported
    Observation date
    Not reported
  22. Key observation
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
    Scope
    Examples of internal agents built on Inspect
  23. Key observation
    Statement type
    Metric
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
    Reported by
    Ramp
    Scope
    Engineers who contributed to the Inspect codebase in the later interview report
    Denominator
    Not reported
    Method
    Not reported
    Observation date
    Not reported
  24. Key observation
    Statement type
    Metric
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
    Reported by
    Ramp
    Scope
    Inspect team staffing: four engineers, one director, and a part-time PM
    Denominator
    Not reported
    Method
    Not reported
    Observation date
    Not reported
  25. Key observation
    Statement type
    Metric
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Not assessed
    Confidence reason
    No explicit confidence assessment is recorded for this claim.
    Reported by
    Ramp
    Scope
    Inspect code written in Inspect sessions; distinct from merged PR share
    Denominator
    Inspect code; the source does not define a code-volume counting method
    Method
    Not reported
    Observation date
    Not reported
  26. Key observation
    Statement type
    Opinion
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Medium
    Confidence reason
    The source says session speed should only be limited by model time-to-first-token; this is a design goal, not a measured result.
    Scope
    Target session startup speed, excluding precompleted cloning and installation
  27. Lesson
    Statement type
    Opinion
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Medium
    Confidence reason
    The author gives codebase specificity as a reason to build Inspect; the post does not establish superiority over every available external tool.
  28. Lesson
    Statement type
    Opinion
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Medium
    Confidence reason
    The adoption account reports the absence of a mandate and the use of public work; it does not separate visibility from improvements in the product.
  29. Lesson
    Statement type
    Opinion
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Medium
    Confidence reason
    The article describes simultaneous sessions and calls background operation better for this use. It does not supply a general local-versus-remote benchmark.
  30. Lesson
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Medium
    Confidence reason
    The image process includes cloning, dependencies, setup, and snapshots on a 30-minute cadence. A final synchronization remains, so setup is not literally eliminated.
  31. Lesson
    Statement type
    Fact
    Provenance
    Reported
    Confidence
    Medium
    Confidence reason
    The retrospective reports the November 2025 pivot and subsequent usage. It does not isolate which part of the change caused the increase.
  32. Operating model assessment
    Statement type
    Inference
    Provenance
    Catalog judgment
    Confidence
    High
    Confidence reason
    The source explicitly states that Inspect cannot self-approve and production merges retain human review.
    Observation date
    2026-05