cloudsealed-jit
August 9, 2026 · View on GitHub
Detects structural waste in cloud billing exports.
Given a billing export from AWS, GCP or Azure, it models what each day should have cost, reports the days that did not match, and turns the excess into a monthly figure. It is a library, a CLI and an HTTP service.
The problem
Cloud cost anomaly detection is usually done by comparing each day against the period average and flagging anything beyond two or three standard deviations. On billing data that method fails in two specific ways.
Standard deviation is inflated by the very spikes you are looking for. A handful of large anomalies raises σ enough to pull themselves back inside the threshold, and to hide every smaller anomaly with them. This is the masking effect, and it gets worse as the anomalies get bigger.
A flat average ignores the weekly cycle. Most cloud bills have a pronounced weekday/weekend shape. Measured against a flat mean, ordinary Mondays look like overspend and ordinary Sundays look like savings.
The method
Baseline. Expected spend for a day is a level term times a weekday term:
$ \text{expected}[\text{i}] = \text{rolling\_median}(\text{cost}, 7)[\text{i}] \times \text{dow\_factor}[\text{weekday}(\text{i})] $
The rolling median follows growth and step changes without being dragged by spikes. The weekday factor is the median ratio of observed spend to the level term for that weekday. It is only estimated with at least two full weeks of data; below that every factor is 1.0.
Scoring. Residuals are scored with a modified z-score built on the median absolute deviation:
z = 0.6745 × (x − baseline) / MAD
The 0.6745 constant makes MAD a consistent estimator of σ for normal data, so the score keeps the familiar "number of deviations" reading while tolerating contamination in roughly half the sample. Days at or above |z| = 3.5 are reported — the threshold recommended by Iglewicz & Hoaglin (1993).
Waste. Only positive excess counts. Waste percentage is the share of total spend sitting above the baseline on anomalous days, which converts directly to currency instead of being a count of unusual days.
Recommendations. Each carries a figure derived from the series itself, normalised to 30 days, and states its assumption in the description. Estimates that depend on facts the analyser cannot observe — whether a workload is production, whether a commitment is acceptable — are labelled conditional rather than presented as findings.
Does it actually work better?
Yes, and it is measured, not asserted. benchmarks/masking_benchmark.py builds
synthetic bills whose anomalies are known by construction and scores this
method against the textbook mean+standard-deviation approach:
| scenario | textbook F1 | this method F1 |
|---|---|---|
| masking (scale estimator) | 0.667 | 0.923 |
| seasonality (baseline) | 0.667 | 1.000 |
| end-to-end | 0.667 | 1.000 |
Full derivation and reproduction steps in METHODOLOGY.md; the
design of the codebase is in architecture.md. The benchmark
runs in CI (--check) and fails the build if the advantage ever regresses.
Install
pip install cloudsealed-jit # library + CLI
pip install "cloudsealed-jit[jit]" # + numba-compiled kernels
pip install "cloudsealed-jit[jit,api]" # + HTTP service
numba is optional. Without it the kernels run on pure NumPy and the results
are identical; only large inputs get slower.
GitHub Action
The fastest way to use this: run the audit in CI and get the findings as a pull request comment, without installing anything locally.
- uses: cloudsealed/JIT-Optimization-Engine@main
with:
billing-csv: billing/latest-export.csv
fail-on-severity: CRITICAL # optional: fail the check on CRITICAL anomalies
Re-runs on the same PR edit the existing comment instead of piling up new ones. See action.yml for all inputs/outputs and .github/workflows/example-usage.yml for a working example (this repository dogfoods its own action against examples/sample-billing.csv on every push).
Alerts
Send the result to Slack (or any generic webhook listener) when an anomaly reaches a severity threshold, without standing up a dashboard:
cloudsealed-jit billing-export.csv --webhook-url "$SLACK_WEBHOOK_URL"
cloudsealed-jit billing-export.csv --webhook-url "$SLACK_WEBHOOK_URL" --webhook-min-severity CRITICAL
A Slack incoming-webhook URL (hooks.slack.com) is auto-detected and rendered
as a formatted message; any other URL receives the full JSON result, so it
works as-is with Teams, PagerDuty, or a custom listener. Nothing is sent on a
quiet run — the default threshold is HIGH. The same behaviour is available
in the HTTP API via the optional webhookUrl field on /v1/analyze-billing.
A failed webhook is logged and never fails the analysis.
Use
CLI
cloudsealed-jit billing-export.csv
cloudsealed-jit billing-export.csv --json > findings.json
cloudsealed-jit billing-export.csv --html report.html
cloudsealed-jit billing-export.csv --type cost-forecast
cloudsealed-jit billing-export.csv --budget 50000 # when will the trend cross it?
--html writes a self-contained report (inline CSS, no CDN) alongside
whatever other output is requested — open it straight from disk, or attach it
to an email.
Forecast
Anomaly detection is reactive — it tells you after a spike. --type cost-forecast (or --budget) adds a proactive projection: it extrapolates
the observed level trend (rolling median slope) forward, carrying the same
weekday seasonality the baseline uses, and — given a budget — predicts the day
the trend crosses it:
Projected 30-day spend USD 10,901.01 (trend rising, USD +4.89/day).
At this trend the USD 6,000.00 budget is crossed on day 18 of the horizon.
It's a mechanical extrapolation, not a probabilistic prediction — the
projectedSpend, dailyTrend, and budgetBreachDay fields state exactly what
was computed, so the number is auditable rather than a black-box guess. The
forecast is added to the JSON/HTTP response only when requested, so the default
response shape is unchanged.
Library
from cloudsealed_jit import parse_billing_csv, analyze
series = parse_billing_csv(open("export.csv").read())
result = analyze(series)
print(result.metrics.wastePercentage)
for r in result.recommendations:
print(r.title, r.potentialSavings)
HTTP service
docker run -p 8091:8091 cloudsealed/jit-optimization-engine
GET /health
POST /v1/analyze-billing
curl -X POST localhost:8091/v1/analyze-billing \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"companyName":"Acme","csvContent":"date,cost\n2026-01-01,100\n..."}'
Set JIT_OPTIMIZATION_API_KEY to require an X-Api-Key header. Set
JIT_MAX_CSV_BYTES to change the 64 MB upload ceiling.
Response shape:
{
"anomalies": [
{ "date": "2026-01-31", "expectedCost": 99.0, "actualCost": 500.0,
"deviation": 405.05, "zScore": 7.82, "severity": "CRITICAL",
"description": "Spend above the day-of-week baseline by USD 401.00 (405.1%)." }
],
"metrics": {
"averageDailyCost": 106.32,
"stdDeviation": 51.69,
"sharpeRatio": 2.06, // spend stability: mean / stddev of daily cost
"wastePercentage": 6.29 // share of total spend above the baseline
},
"recommendations": [
{ "title": "...", "description": "...", "potentialSavings": 200.5, "effort": "MEDIUM" }
],
"summary": "..."
}
sharpeRatio is a spend stability ratio — mean daily cost divided by its
standard deviation, the reciprocal of the coefficient of variation. Higher
means more predictable spend. It is named for the field in the consuming API
contract; it is not a risk-adjusted return.
Supported exports
| Provider | Date column | Cost column |
|---|---|---|
| AWS Cost and Usage Report | lineItem/UsageStartDate | lineItem/UnblendedCost |
| GCP billing export | usage_start_time | cost |
| Azure cost export | Date, UsageDateTime | Cost, CostInBillingCurrency |
| FOCUS 1.0 | ChargePeriodStart | BilledCost |
| Generic | heuristic | heuristic |
FOCUS is the FinOps Open Cost and Usage Specification — the vendor-neutral billing format AWS, GCP, Azure and OCI now export natively. One FOCUS export runs through this analyser unchanged regardless of which cloud produced it, so a multi-cloud estate is analysed the same way end to end.
Line items are aggregated to calendar days. Days with no line items are inserted as zero-spend days rather than skipped. Rows that cannot be parsed are counted and reported in the summary rather than dropped silently.
How this compares to other cloud cost anomaly detection tools
cloudsealed-jit does one thing — find cost spikes in a billing export — and does not try to be a full FinOps platform. If you need a dashboard, live cloud API connectors, Kubernetes cost allocation, or RI/Savings Plan management, a commercial platform is the right tool; this is a lighter, composable piece for the detection step specifically.
| cloudsealed-jit | Vantage / CloudZero / Finout | AWS Cost Anomaly Detection | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Rolling-median + MAD (open, documented, benchmarked) | Proprietary ML | Proprietary ML |
| Multi-cloud | AWS/GCP/Azure/generic CSV | Yes (paid) | AWS only |
| Deployment | Library, CLI, self-hosted API, GitHub Action, MCP tool | SaaS | AWS-managed |
| Cost | Free, open source (MIT) | Paid, usage-based | Free (AWS-native) |
| Dashboard | None (by design — pair with your own) | Yes | Yes |
| Slack/webhook alerts | Yes | Yes | Yes (SNS) |
FAQ
How do I detect cost anomalies in an AWS billing export with Python?
Install cloudsealed-jit, then cloudsealed-jit your-cur-export.csv. See
Install and Use above.
Why not just use mean + standard deviation for anomaly detection? Because a handful of large spikes inflates the standard deviation enough to hide themselves and everything smaller — see "The problem" and the measured comparison in "Does it actually work better?".
Can an AI agent call this directly instead of me running the CLI? Yes — see cloudsealed-mcp, an MCP server that exposes this as a tool for Claude Code, Claude Desktop, Cursor, and other MCP clients.
Does this replace AWS Cost Anomaly Detection / GCP's built-in tools? Not necessarily — it's cloud-agnostic and works on data you've already exported, so it's useful alongside native tools when you need one method across multiple clouds, or want the detection logic to run in CI as a GitHub Action.
Development
pip install -e ".[jit,api,dev]"
pytest
The test suite builds synthetic exports whose correct answer is known in advance — a known spike at a known date, a known weekend-idle service, a stable series that must produce no findings — so the assertions test behaviour rather than the current output.
License
MIT. See LICENSE.
If this saved you from a false-positive cost alert, a star helps other teams find it. Bug reports and PRs are welcome — see CONTRIBUTING.md.