Can you use AI to implement an Enterprise Master Patient Index (EMPI)?
The Short Answer: Yes. And It's Better Than You Think. If you've worked in healthcare IT for any length of time, you've dealt with this problem. Patient A shows up at Hospital 1 as "Jonathan Smith, DOB 03/15/1985." Patient B shows up at Hospital 2 as "Jon Smith, DOB 03/15/1985." Patient C shows up at a clinic as "John Smythe, DOB 03/15/1985." Same person? Probably. But how do you prove it at scale — across millions of records, dozens of source systems, and data quality that ranges from pristine to "someone fat-fingered a birth year"? That's the problem an Enterprise Master Patient Index (EMPI) solves. And traditionally, it's been solved with expensive commercial products, rigid rule engines, and a lot of manual review. We built one with AI. On Azure. With open-source tooling. And the results are genuinely impressive. This post walks through how it works, what the architecture looks like, and why the combination of deterministic matching, probabilistic algorithms, and AI-enhanced scoring produces better results than any single approach alone. 1. Why EMPI Still Matters (More Than Ever) Healthcare organizations don't have a "patient data problem." They have a patient identity problem. Every EHR, lab system, pharmacy platform, and claims processor creates its own patient record. When those systems exchange data via FHIR, HL7, or flat files, there's no universal patient identifier in the U.S. — Congress has blocked funding for one since 1998. The result: Duplicate records inflate costs and fragment care history Missed matches mean clinicians don't see a patient's full medical picture False positives can merge two different patients into one record — a patient safety risk Traditional EMPI solutions use deterministic matching (exact field comparisons) and sometimes probabilistic scoring (fuzzy string matching). They work. But they leave a significant gray zone of records that require human review — and that queue grows faster than teams can process it. What if AI could shrink that gray zone? 2. The Architecture: Three Layers of Matching Here's the core insight: no single matching technique is sufficient. Exact matches miss typos. Fuzzy matches produce false positives. AI alone hallucinates. But layer them together with calibrated weights, and you get something remarkably accurate. Let's break each layer down. 3. Layer 1: Deterministic Matching — The Foundation Deterministic matching is the bedrock. If two records share an Enterprise ID, they're the same person. Full stop. The system assigns trust levels to each identifier type: Identifier Weight Why Enterprise ID 1.0 Explicitly assigned by an authority SSN 0.9 Highly reliable when present and accurate MRN 0.8 System-dependent — only valid within the same healthcare system Date of Birth 0.35 Common but not unique — 0.3% of the population shares any given birthday Phone 0.3 Useful signal but changes frequently Email 0.3 Same — supportive evidence, not proof The key implementation detail here is MRN system validation. An MRN of "12345" at Hospital A is completely unrelated to MRN "12345" at Hospital B. The system checks the identifier's source system URI before considering it a match. Without this, you'd get a flood of false positives from coincidental MRN collisions. If an Enterprise ID match is found, the system short-circuits — no need for probabilistic or AI scoring. It's a guaranteed match. 4. Layer 2: Probabilistic Matching — Where It Gets Interesting This is where the system earns its keep. Probabilistic matching handles the messy reality of healthcare data: typos, nicknames, transposed digits, abbreviations, and inconsistent formatting. Name Similarity The system uses a multi-algorithm ensemble for name matching: Jaro-Winkler (60% weight): Optimized for short strings like names. Gives extra credit when strings share a common prefix — so "Jonathan" vs "Jon" scores higher than you'd expect. Soundex / Metaphone (phonetic boost): Catches "Smith" vs "Smythe," "Jon" vs "John," and other sound-alike variations that string distance alone would miss. Levenshtein distance (typo detection): Handles single-character errors — "Johanson" vs "Johansn." These scores are blended, and first name and last name are scored independently before combining. This prevents a matching last name from compensating for a wildly different first name. Date of Birth — Smarter Than You'd Think DOB matching goes beyond exact comparison. The system detects month/day transposition — one of the most common data entry errors in healthcare: Scenario Score Exact match 1.0 Month and day swapped (e.g., 03/15 vs 15/03) 0.8 Off by 1 day 0.9 Off by 2–30 days 0.5–0.8 (scaled) Different year 0.0 This alone catches a category of mismatches that pure deterministic systems miss entirely. Address Similarity Address matching uses a hybrid approach: Jaro-Winkler on the normalized full address (70% weight) Token-based Jaccard similarity (30% weight) to handle word reordering Bonus scoring for matching postal codes, city, and state Abbreviation expansion — "St" becomes "Street," "Ave" becomes "Avenue" 5. Layer 3: AI-Enhanced Matching — The Game Changer This is where the architecture diverges from traditional EMPI solutions. OpenAI Embeddings (Semantic Similarity) The system generates a text embedding for each patient's complete demographic profile using OpenAI's text-embedding-3-small model. Then it computes cosine similarity between patient pairs. Why does this work? Because embeddings capture semantic relationships that string-matching can't. "123 Main Street, Apt 4B, Springfield, IL" and "123 Main St #4B, Springfield, Illinois" are semantically identical even though they differ character-by-character. The embedding score carries only 10% of the total weight — it's a signal, not a verdict. But in ambiguous cases, it's the signal that tips the scale. GPT-5.2 LLM Analysis (Intelligent Reasoning) For matches that land in the human review zone (0.65–0.85), the system optionally invokes GPT-5.2 to analyze the patient pair and provide structured reasoning: { "match_score": 0.92, "confidence": "high", "reasoning": "Multiple strong signals: identical last name, DOB matches exactly, same city. First name 'Jon' is a common nickname for 'Jonathan'.", "name_analysis": "First name variation is a known nickname pattern.", "potential_issues": [], "recommendation": "merge" } The LLM doesn't just produce a number — it explains why it thinks two records match. This is enormously valuable for the human reviewers who make final decisions on ambiguous cases. Instead of staring at two records and guessing, they get AI-generated reasoning they can evaluate. When LLM analysis is enabled, the final score blends traditional and LLM scores: Final Score = (Traditional Score × 0.8) + (LLM Score × 0.2) The LLM temperature is set to 0.1 for consistency — you want deterministic outputs from your matching engine, not creative ones. 6. The Graph Database: Modeling Patient Relationships Records and scores are only half the story. The real power comes from how the system stores and traverses relationships. We use Azure Cosmos DB with the Gremlin API — a graph database that models patients, identifiers, addresses, and clinical data as vertices connected by typed edges. (:Patient)──[:HAS_IDENTIFIER]──▶(:Identifier) │ ├──[:HAS_ADDRESS]──▶(:Address) │ ├──[:HAS_CONTACT]──▶(:ContactPoint) │ ├──[:LINKED_TO]──▶(:EmpiRecord) ← Golden Record │ ├──[:POTENTIAL_MATCH {score, confidence}]──▶(:Patient) │ └──[:HAS_ENCOUNTER]──▶(:Encounter) └──[:HAS_OBSERVATION]──▶(:Observation) Why a Graph? Three reasons: Candidate retrieval is a graph traversal problem. "Find all patients who share an identifier with Patient X" is a natural graph query — traverse from the patient to their identifiers, then back to other patients who share those same identifiers. In Gremlin, this is a few lines. In SQL, it's a multi-table join with performance that degrades as data grows. Relationships are first-class citizens. A POTENTIAL_MATCH edge stores the match score, confidence level, and detailed breakdown directly on the relationship. You can query "show me all high-confidence matches" without any joins. EMPI records are naturally hierarchical. A golden record (EmpiRecord) links to multiple source patients via LINKED_TO edges. When you merge two patients, you're adding an edge — not rewriting rows in a relational table. Performance at Scale Cosmos DB's partition strategy uses source_system as the partition key, providing logical isolation between healthcare systems. The system handles Azure's 429 rate-limiting with automatic retry and exponential backoff, and uses batch operations for bulk loads to avoid RU exhaustion. 7. FHIR-Native Data Ingestion The system ingests HL7 FHIR R4 Bundles — the emerging interoperability standard for healthcare data exchange. Each FHIR Bundle is a JSON file containing a complete patient record: demographics, encounters, observations, conditions, procedures, immunizations, medication requests, and diagnostic reports. The FHIR loader: Maps FHIR identifier systems to internal types (SSN, MRN, Enterprise ID) Handles all three FHIR date formats (YYYY, YYYY-MM, YYYY-MM-DD) Extracts clinical data for comprehensive patient profiles Uses an iterator pattern for memory-efficient processing of thousands of patients Tracks source system provenance for audit compliance This means the service can ingest data directly from any FHIR-compliant EHR — Epic, Cerner, MEDITECH, or Synthea-generated test data — without custom integration work. 8. The Conversational Agent: Matching via Natural Language Here's where it gets fun. The system includes a conversational AI agent built on the Azure AI Foundry Agent Service. It's deployed as a GPT-5.2-powered agent with OpenAPI tools that call the matching service's REST API. Instead of navigating a complex UI to find matches, a data steward can simply ask: "Search patients named Aaron" "Compare patient abc-123 with patient xyz-456" "What matches are pending review?" "Approve the match between patient A and patient B" The agent is integrated directly into the Streamlit dashboard's Agent Chat tab, so users never leave their workflow. Under the hood, when the agent decides to call a tool (like "search patients"), Azure AI Foundry makes an HTTP request directly to the Container App API — no local function execution required. Available Agent Tools Tool What It Does searchPatients Search patients by name, DOB, or identifier getPatientDetails Get detailed patient demographics and history findPatientMatches Find potential duplicates for a patient compareTwoPatients Side-by-side comparison with detailed scoring getPendingReviews List matches awaiting human decision submitReviewDecision Approve or reject a match getServiceStatistics MPI dashboard metrics This same tool set is also exposed via a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server, making the matching engine accessible from AI-powered IDEs and coding assistants. 9. The Dashboard: Putting It All Together The Patient Matching Service includes a full-featured Streamlit dashboard for operational management. Page What You See Dashboard Key metrics, score distribution charts, recent match activity Match Results Filterable list with score breakdowns — deterministic, probabilistic, AI, and LLM tabs Patients Browse and search all loaded patients with clinical data Patient Graph Interactive graph visualization of patient relationships using streamlit-agraph Review Queue Pending matches with approve/reject actions Agent Chat Conversational AI for natural language queries Settings Configure match weights, thresholds, and display preferences The match detail view provides six tabs that walk reviewers through every scoring component: Summary, Deterministic, Probabilistic, AI/Embeddings, LLM Analysis, and Raw Data. Reviewers don't just see a number — they see exactly why the system scored a match the way it did. 10. Azure Architecture The full solution runs on Azure: Service Role Azure Cosmos DB (Gremlin + NoSQL) Patient graph storage and match result persistence Azure OpenAI (GPT-5.2 + text-embedding-3-small) LLM analysis and semantic embeddings Azure Container Apps Hosts the FastAPI REST API Azure AI Foundry Agent Service Conversational agent with OpenAPI tools Azure Log Analytics Centralized logging and monitoring The separation between Cosmos DB's Gremlin API (graph traversal) and NoSQL API (match result documents) is intentional. Graph queries excel at relationship traversal — "find all patients connected to this identifier." Document queries excel at filtering and aggregation — "show me all auto-merge matches from the last 24 hours." 11. What We Learned AI doesn't replace deterministic matching. It augments it. The three-layer approach works because each layer compensates for the others' weaknesses: Deterministic handles the easy cases quickly and with certainty Probabilistic catches the typos, nicknames, and formatting differences that exact matching misses AI provides semantic understanding and human-readable reasoning for the ambiguous middle ground The LLM is most valuable as a reviewer's assistant, not a decision-maker. We deliberately keep the LLM weight at 20% of the final score. Its real value is the structured reasoning it produces — the "why" behind a match score. Human reviewers process cases faster when they have AI-generated analysis explaining the matching signals. Graph databases are naturally suited for patient identity. Patient matching is fundamentally a relationship problem. "Who shares identifiers with whom?" "Which patients are linked to this golden record?" "Show me the cluster of records that might all be the same person." These are graph traversal queries. Trying to model this in relational tables works, but you're fighting the data model instead of leveraging it. FHIR interoperability reduces integration friction to near zero. By accepting FHIR R4 Bundles as the input format, the service can ingest data from any modern EHR without custom connectors. This is a massive practical advantage — the hardest part of any EMPI project is usually getting the data in, not matching it. 12. Try It Yourself The Patient Matching Service is built entirely on Azure services and open-source tooling https://github.com/dondinulos/patient-matching-service : Python with FastAPI, Streamlit, and the Azure AI SDKs Azure Cosmos DB (Gremlin API) for graph storage Azure OpenAI for embeddings and LLM analysis Azure AI Foundry for the conversational agent Azure Container Apps for deployment Synthea for FHIR test data generation The matching algorithms (Jaro-Winkler, Soundex, Metaphone, Levenshtein) use pure Python implementations — no proprietary matching engines required. Whether you're building a new EMPI from scratch or augmenting an existing one with AI capabilities, the three-layer approach gives you the best of all worlds: the certainty of deterministic matching, the flexibility of probabilistic scoring, and the intelligence of AI-enhanced analysis. Final Thoughts Can you use AI to implement an EMPI? Yes. And the answer isn't "replace everything with an LLM." It's "use AI where it adds the most value — semantic understanding, natural language reasoning, and augmenting human reviewers — while keeping deterministic and probabilistic matching as the foundation." The combination is more accurate than any single approach. The graph database makes relationships queryable. The conversational agent makes the system accessible. And the whole thing runs on Azure with FHIR-native data ingestion. Patient matching isn't a solved problem. But with AI in the stack, it's a much more manageable one. Tags: Healthcare, Azure, AI, EMPI, FHIR, Patient Matching, Azure Cosmos DB, Azure OpenAI, Graph Database, InteroperabilityStop Drawing Architecture Diagrams Manually: Meet the Open-Source AI Architecture Review Agents
Designing and documenting software architecture is often a battle against static diagrams that become outdated the moment they are drawn. The Architecture Review Agent changes that by turning your design process into a dynamic, AI-powered workflow. In this post, we explore how to leverage Microsoft Foundry Hosted Agents, Azure OpenAI, and Excalidraw to build an open-source tool that instantly converts messy text descriptions, YAML, or README files into editable architecture diagrams. Beyond just drawing boxes, the agent acts as a technical co-pilot, delivering prioritized risk assessments, highlighting single points of failure, and mapping component dependencies. Discover how to eliminate manual diagramming, catch security flaws early, and deploy your own enterprise-grade agent with zero infrastructure overhead.Choosing the Right Intelligence Layer for Your Application
Introduction One of the most common questions developers ask when planning AI-powered applications is: "Should I use the GitHub Copilot SDK or the Microsoft Agent Framework?" It's a natural question, both technologies let you add an intelligence layer to your apps, both come from Microsoft's ecosystem, and both deal with AI agents. But they solve fundamentally different problems, and understanding where each excels will save you weeks of architectural missteps. The short answer is this: the Copilot SDK puts Copilot inside your app, while the Agent Framework lets you build your app out of agents. They're complementary, not competing. In fact, the most interesting applications use both, the Agent Framework as the system architecture and the Copilot SDK as a powerful execution engine within it. This article breaks down each technology's purpose, architecture, and ideal use cases. We'll walk through concrete scenarios, examine a real-world project that combines both, and give you a decision framework for your own applications. Whether you're building developer tools, enterprise workflows, or data analysis pipelines, you'll leave with a clear understanding of which tool belongs where in your stack. The Core Distinction: Embedding Intelligence vs Building With Intelligence Before comparing features, it helps to understand the fundamental design philosophy behind each technology. They approach the concept of "adding AI to your application" from opposite directions. The GitHub Copilot SDK exposes the same agentic runtime that powers Copilot CLI as a programmable library. When you use it, you're embedding a production-tested agent, complete with planning, tool invocation, file editing, and command execution, directly into your application. You don't build the orchestration logic yourself. Instead, you delegate tasks to Copilot's agent loop and receive results. Think of it as hiring a highly capable contractor: you describe the job, and the contractor figures out the steps. The Microsoft Agent Framework is a framework for building, orchestrating, and hosting your own agents. You explicitly model agents, workflows, state, memory, hand-offs, and human-in-the-loop interactions. You control the orchestration, policies, deployment, and observability. Think of it as designing the company that employs those contractors: you define the roles, processes, escalation paths, and quality controls. This distinction has profound implications for what you build and how you build it. GitHub Copilot SDK: When Your App Wants Copilot-Style Intelligence The GitHub Copilot SDK is the right choice when you want to embed agentic behavior into an existing application without building your own planning or orchestration layer. It's optimized for developer workflows and task automation scenarios where you need an AI agent to do things, edit files, run commands, generate code, interact with tools, reliably and quickly. What You Get Out of the Box The SDK communicates with the Copilot CLI server via JSON-RPC, managing the CLI process lifecycle automatically. This means your application inherits capabilities that have been battle-tested across millions of Copilot CLI users: Planning and execution: The agent analyzes tasks, breaks them into steps, and executes them autonomously Built-in tool support: File system operations, Git operations, web requests, and shell command execution work out of the box MCP (Model Context Protocol) integration: Connect to any MCP server to extend the agent's capabilities with custom data sources and tools Multi-language support: Available as SDKs for Python, TypeScript/Node.js, Go, and .NET Custom tool definitions: Define your own tools and constrain which tools the agent can access BYOK (Bring Your Own Key): Use your own API keys from OpenAI, Azure AI Foundry, or Anthropic instead of GitHub authentication Architecture The SDK's architecture is deliberately simple. Your application communicates with the Copilot CLI running in server mode: Your Application ↓ SDK Client ↓ JSON-RPC Copilot CLI (server mode) The SDK manages the CLI process lifecycle automatically. You can also connect to an external CLI server if you need more control over the deployment. This simplicity is intentional, it keeps the integration surface small so you can focus on your application logic rather than agent infrastructure. Ideal Use Cases for the Copilot SDK The Copilot SDK shines in scenarios where you need a competent agent to execute tasks on behalf of users. These include: AI-powered developer tools: IDEs, CLIs, internal developer portals, and code review tools that need to understand, generate, or modify code "Do the task for me" agents: Applications where users describe what they want—edit these files, run this analysis, generate a pull request and the agent handles execution Rapid prototyping with agentic behavior: When you need to ship an intelligent feature quickly without building a custom planning or orchestration system Internal tools that interact with codebases: Build tools that explore repositories, generate documentation, run migrations, or automate repetitive development tasks A practical example: imagine building an internal CLI that lets engineers say "set up a new microservice with our standard boilerplate, CI pipeline, and monitoring configuration." The Copilot SDK agent would plan the file creation, scaffold the code, configure the pipeline YAML, and even run initial tests, all without you writing orchestration logic. Microsoft Agent Framework: When Your App Is the Intelligence System The Microsoft Agent Framework is the right choice when you need to build a system of agents that collaborate, maintain state, follow business processes, and operate with enterprise-grade governance. It's designed for long-running, multi-agent workflows where you need fine-grained control over every aspect of orchestration. What You Get Out of the Box The Agent Framework provides a comprehensive foundation for building sophisticated agent systems in both Python and .NET: Graph-based workflows: Connect agents and deterministic functions using data flows with streaming, checkpointing, human-in-the-loop, and time-travel capabilities Multi-agent orchestration: Define how agents collaborate, hand off tasks, escalate decisions, and share state Durability and checkpoints: Workflows can pause, resume, and recover from failures, essential for business-critical processes Human-in-the-loop: Built-in support for approval gates, review steps, and human override points Observability: OpenTelemetry integration for distributed tracing, monitoring, and debugging across agent boundaries Multiple agent providers: Use Azure OpenAI, OpenAI, and other LLM providers as the intelligence behind your agents DevUI: An interactive developer UI for testing, debugging, and visualizing workflow execution Architecture The Agent Framework gives you explicit control over the agent topology. You define agents, connect them in workflows, and manage the flow of data between them: ┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ │ Agent A │────▶│ Agent B │────▶│ Agent C │ │ (Planner) │ │ (Executor) │ │ (Reviewer) │ └─────────────┘ └──────────────┘ └──────────────┘ Define Execute Validate strategy tasks output Each agent has its own instructions, tools, memory, and state. The framework manages communication between agents, handles failures, and provides visibility into what's happening at every step. This explicitness is what makes it suitable for enterprise applications where auditability and control are non-negotiable. Ideal Use Cases for the Agent Framework The Agent Framework excels in scenarios where you need a system of coordinated agents operating under business rules. These include: Multi-agent business workflows: Customer support pipelines, research workflows, operational processes, and data transformation pipelines where different agents handle different responsibilities Systems requiring durability: Workflows that run for hours or days, need checkpoints, can survive restarts, and maintain state across sessions Governance-heavy applications: Processes requiring approval gates, audit trails, role-based access, and compliance documentation Agent collaboration patterns: Applications where agents need to negotiate, escalate, debate, or refine outputs iteratively before producing a final result Enterprise data pipelines: Complex data processing workflows where AI agents analyze, transform, and validate data through multiple stages A practical example: an enterprise customer support system where a triage agent classifies incoming tickets, a research agent gathers relevant documentation and past solutions, a response agent drafts replies, and a quality agent reviews responses before they reach the customer, with a human escalation path when confidence is low. Side-by-Side Comparison To make the distinction concrete, here's how the two technologies compare across key dimensions that matter when choosing an intelligence layer for your application. Dimension GitHub Copilot SDK Microsoft Agent Framework Primary purpose Embed Copilot's agent runtime into your app Build and orchestrate your own agent systems Orchestration Handled by Copilot's agent loop, you delegate You define explicitly, agents, workflows, state, hand-offs Agent count Typically single agent per session Multi-agent systems with agent-to-agent communication State management Session-scoped, managed by the SDK Durable state with checkpointing, time-travel, persistence Human-in-the-loop Basic, user confirms actions Rich approval gates, review steps, escalation paths Observability Session logs and tool call traces Full OpenTelemetry, distributed tracing, DevUI Best for Developer tools, task automation, code-centric workflows Enterprise workflows, multi-agent systems, business processes Languages Python, TypeScript, Go, .NET Python, .NET Learning curve Low, install, configure, delegate tasks Moderate, design agents, workflows, state, and policies Maturity Technical Preview Preview with active development, 7k+ stars, 100+ contributors Real-World Example: Both Working Together The most compelling applications don't choose between these technologies, they combine them. A perfect demonstration of this complementary relationship is the Agentic House project by my colleague Anthony Shaw, which uses an Agent Framework workflow to orchestrate three agents, one of which is powered by the GitHub Copilot SDK. The Problem Agentic House lets users ask natural language questions about their Home Assistant smart home data. Questions like "what time of day is my phone normally fully charged?" or "is there a correlation between when the back door is open and the temperature in my office?" require exploring available data, writing analysis code, and producing visual results—a multi-step process that no single agent can handle well alone. The Architecture The project implements a three-agent pipeline using the Agent Framework for orchestration: ┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ │ Planner │────▶│ Coder │────▶│ Reviewer │ │ (GPT-4.1) │ │ (Copilot) │ │ (GPT-4.1) │ └─────────────┘ └──────────────┘ └──────────────┘ Plan Notebook Approve/ analysis generation Reject Planner Agent: Takes a natural language question and creates a structured analysis plan, which Home Assistant entities to query, what visualizations to create, what hypotheses to test. This agent uses GPT-4.1 through Azure AI Foundry or GitHub Models. Coder Agent: Uses the GitHub Copilot SDK to generate a complete Jupyter notebook that fetches data from the Home Assistant REST API via MCP, performs the analysis, and creates visualizations. The Copilot agent is constrained to only use specific tools, demonstrating how the SDK supports tool restriction. Reviewer Agent: Acts as a security gatekeeper, reviewing the generated notebook to ensure it only reads and displays data. It rejects notebooks that attempt to modify Home Assistant state, import dangerous modules, make external network requests, or contain obfuscated code. Why This Architecture Works This design demonstrates several principles about when to use which technology: Agent Framework provides the workflow: The sequential pipeline with planning, execution, and review is a classic Agent Framework pattern. Each agent has a clear role, and the framework manages the flow between them. Copilot SDK provides the coding execution: The Coder agent leverages Copilot's battle-tested ability to generate code, work with files, and use MCP tools. Building a custom code generation agent from scratch would take significantly longer and produce less reliable results. Tool constraints demonstrate responsible AI: The Copilot SDK agent is constrained to only specific tools, showing how you can embed powerful agentic behavior while maintaining security boundaries. Standalone agents handle planning and review: The Planner and Reviewer use simpler LLM-based agents, they don't need Copilot's code execution capabilities, just good reasoning. While the Home Assistant data is a fun demonstration, the pattern is designed for something much more significant: applying AI agents for complex research against private data sources. The same architecture could analyze internal databases, proprietary datasets, or sensitive business metrics. Decision Framework: Which Should You Use? When deciding between the Copilot SDK and the Agent Framework, or both, consider these questions about your application. Start with the Copilot SDK if: You need a single agent to execute tasks autonomously (code generation, file editing, command execution) Your application is developer-facing or code-centric You want to ship agentic features quickly without building orchestration infrastructure The tasks are session-scoped, they start and complete within a single interaction You want to leverage Copilot's existing tool ecosystem and MCP integration Start with the Agent Framework if: You need multiple agents collaborating with different roles and responsibilities Your workflows are long-running, require checkpoints, or need to survive restarts You need human-in-the-loop approvals, escalation paths, or governance controls Observability and auditability are requirements (regulated industries, enterprise compliance) You're building a platform where the agents themselves are the product Use both together if: You need a multi-agent workflow where at least one agent requires strong code execution capabilities You want Agent Framework's orchestration with Copilot's battle-tested agent runtime as one of the execution engines Your system involves planning, coding, and review stages that benefit from different agent architectures You're building research or analysis tools that combine AI reasoning with code generation Getting Started Both technologies are straightforward to install and start experimenting with. Here's how to get each running in minutes. GitHub Copilot SDK Quick Start Install the SDK for your preferred language: # Python pip install github-copilot-sdk # TypeScript / Node.js npm install @github/copilot-sdk # .NET dotnet add package GitHub.Copilot.SDK # Go go get github.com/github/copilot-sdk/go The SDK requires the Copilot CLI to be installed and authenticated. Follow the Copilot CLI installation guide to set that up. A GitHub Copilot subscription is required for standard usage, though BYOK mode allows you to use your own API keys without GitHub authentication. Microsoft Agent Framework Quick Start Install the framework: # Python pip install agent-framework --pre # .NET dotnet add package Microsoft.Agents.AI The Agent Framework supports multiple LLM providers including Azure OpenAI and OpenAI directly. Check the quick start tutorial for a complete walkthrough of building your first agent. Try the Combined Approach To see both technologies working together, clone the Agentic House project: git clone https://github.com/tonybaloney/agentic-house.git cd agentic-house uv sync You'll need a Home Assistant instance, the Copilot CLI authenticated, and either a GitHub token or Azure AI Foundry endpoint. The project's README walks through the full setup, and the architecture provides an excellent template for building your own multi-agent systems with embedded Copilot capabilities. Key Takeaways Copilot SDK = "Put Copilot inside my app": Embed a production-tested agentic runtime with planning, tool execution, file edits, and MCP support directly into your application Agent Framework = "Build my app out of agents": Design, orchestrate, and host multi-agent systems with explicit workflows, durable state, and enterprise governance They're complementary, not competing: The Copilot SDK can act as a powerful execution engine inside Agent Framework workflows, as demonstrated by the Agentic House project Choose based on your orchestration needs: If you need one agent executing tasks, start with the Copilot SDK. If you need coordinated agents with business logic, start with the Agent Framework The real power is in combination: The most sophisticated applications use Agent Framework for workflow orchestration and the Copilot SDK for high-leverage task execution within those workflows Conclusion and Next Steps The question isn't really "Copilot SDK or Agent Framework?" It's "where does each fit in my architecture?" Understanding this distinction unlocks a powerful design pattern: use the Agent Framework to model your business processes as agent workflows, and use the Copilot SDK wherever you need a highly capable agent that can plan, code, and execute autonomously. Start by identifying your application's needs. If you're building a developer tool that needs to understand and modify code, the Copilot SDK gets you there fast. If you're building an enterprise system where multiple AI agents need to collaborate under governance constraints, the Agent Framework provides the architecture. And if you need both, as most ambitious applications do, now you know how they fit together. The AI development ecosystem is moving rapidly. Both technologies are in active development with growing communities and expanding capabilities. The architectural patterns you learn today, embedding intelligent agents, orchestrating multi-agent workflows, combining execution engines with orchestration frameworks, will remain valuable regardless of how the specific tools evolve. Resources GitHub Copilot SDK Repository – SDKs for Python, TypeScript, Go, and .NET with documentation and examples Microsoft Agent Framework Repository – Framework source, samples, and workflow examples for Python and .NET Agentic House – Real-world example combining Agent Framework with Copilot SDK for smart home data analysis Agent Framework Documentation – Official Microsoft Learn documentation with tutorials and user guides Copilot CLI Installation Guide – Setup instructions for the CLI that powers the Copilot SDK Copilot SDK Getting Started Guide – Step-by-step tutorial for SDK integration Copilot SDK Cookbook – Practical recipes for common tasks across all supported languagesPrivyDoc: Building a Zero-Data-Leak AI with Foundry Local & Microsoft's Agent Framework
Tired of choosing between powerful AI insights and sacrificing your data's privacy? PrivyDoc offers a groundbreaking solution. In this article, Microsoft MVP in AI, Shivam Goyal, introduces his innovative project that brings robust AI document analysis directly to your local machine, ensuring zero data ever leaves your device. Discover how PrivyDoc leverages two cutting-edge Microsoft technologies: Foundry Local: The secret sauce for 100% on-device AI processing, allowing advanced models to run securely without cloud dependency. Microsoft Agent Framework: The intelligent orchestrator that builds a sophisticated multi-agent pipeline, handling everything from text extraction and entity recognition to summarization and sentiment analysis. Learn about PrivyDoc's intuitive web UI, its multi-format support, and crucial features that make it perfect for sensitive industries like legal, healthcare, and finance. Say goodbye to privacy concerns and hello to AI-powered document intelligence without compromise.Building a Local Research Desk: Multi-Agent Orchestration
Introduction Multi-agent systems represent the next evolution of AI applications. Instead of a single model handling everything, specialised agents collaborate—each with defined responsibilities, passing context to one another, and producing results that no single agent could achieve alone. But building these systems typically requires cloud infrastructure, API keys, usage tracking, and the constant concern about what data leaves your machine. What if you could build sophisticated multi-agent workflows entirely on your local machine, with no cloud dependencies? The Local Research & Synthesis Desk demonstrates exactly this. Using Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF) for orchestration and Foundry Local for on-device inference, this demo shows how to create a four-agent research pipeline that runs entirely on your hardware—no API keys, no data leaving your network, and complete control over every step. This article walks through the architecture, implementation patterns, and practical code that makes multi-agent local AI possible. You'll learn how to bootstrap Foundry Local from Python, create specialised agents with distinct roles, wire them into sequential, concurrent, and feedback loop orchestration patterns, and implement tool calling for extended functionality. Whether you're building research tools, internal analysis systems, or simply exploring what's possible with local AI, this architecture provides a production-ready foundation. Why Multi-Agent Architecture Matters Single-agent AI systems hit limitations quickly. Ask one model to research a topic, analyse findings, identify gaps, and write a comprehensive report—and you'll get mediocre results. The model tries to do everything at once, with no opportunity for specialisation, review, or iterative refinement. Multi-agent systems solve this by decomposing complex tasks into specialised roles. Each agent focuses on what it does best: Planners break ambiguous questions into concrete sub-tasks Retrievers focus exclusively on finding and extracting relevant information Critics review work for gaps, contradictions, and quality issues Writers synthesise everything into coherent, well-structured output This separation of concerns mirrors how human teams work effectively. A research team doesn't have one person doing everything—they have researchers, fact-checkers, editors, and writers. Multi-agent AI systems apply the same principle to AI workflows, with each agent receiving the output of previous agents as context for their own specialised task. The Local Research & Synthesis Desk implements this pattern with four primary agents, plus an optional ToolAgent for utility functions. Here's how user questions flow through the system: This architecture demonstrates three essential orchestration patterns: sequential pipelines where each agent builds on the previous output, concurrent fan-out where independent tasks run in parallel to save time, and feedback loops where the Critic can send work back to the Retriever for iterative refinement. The Technology Stack: MAF + Foundry Local Before diving into implementation, let's understand the two core technologies that make this architecture possible and why they work so well together. Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF) The Microsoft Agent Framework provides building blocks for creating AI agents in Python and .NET. Unlike frameworks that require specific cloud providers, MAF works with any OpenAI-compatible API—which is exactly what Foundry Local provides. The key abstraction in MAF is the ChatAgent . Each agent has: Instructions: A system prompt that defines the agent's role and behaviour Chat client: An OpenAI-compatible client for making inference calls Tools: Optional functions the agent can invoke during execution Name: An identifier for logging and observability MAF handles message threading, tool execution, and response parsing automatically. You focus on designing agent behaviour rather than managing low-level API interactions. Foundry Local Foundry Local brings Azure AI Foundry's model catalog to your local machine. It automatically selects the best hardware acceleration available (GPU, NPU, or CPU) and exposes models through an OpenAI-compatible API. Models run entirely on-device with no data leaving your machine. The foundry-local-sdk Python package provides programmatic control over the Foundry Local service. You can start the service, download models, and retrieve connection information—all from your Python code. This is the "control plane" that manages the local AI infrastructure. The combination is powerful: MAF handles agent logic and orchestration, while Foundry Local provides the underlying inference. No cloud dependencies, no API keys, complete data privacy: Bootstrapping Foundry Local from Python The first practical challenge is starting Foundry Local programmatically. The FoundryLocalBootstrapper class handles this, encapsulating all the setup logic so the rest of the application can focus on agent behaviour. The bootstrap process follows three steps: start the Foundry Local service if it's not running, download the requested model if it's not cached, and return connection information that MAF agents can use. Here's the core implementation: from dataclasses import dataclass from foundry_local import FoundryLocalManager @dataclass class FoundryConnection: """Holds endpoint, API key, and model ID after bootstrap.""" endpoint: str api_key: str model_id: str model_alias: str This dataclass carries everything needed to connect MAF agents to Foundry Local. The endpoint is typically http://localhost:<port>/v1 (the port is assigned dynamically), and the API key is managed internally by Foundry Local. class FoundryLocalBootstrapper: def __init__(self, alias: str | None = None) -> None: self.alias = alias or os.getenv("MODEL_ALIAS", "qwen2.5-0.5b") def bootstrap(self) -> FoundryConnection: """Start service, download & load model, return connection info.""" from foundry_local import FoundryLocalManager manager = FoundryLocalManager() model_info = manager.download_and_load_model(self.alias) return FoundryConnection( endpoint=manager.endpoint, api_key=manager.api_key, model_id=model_info.id, model_alias=self.alias, ) Key design decisions in this implementation: Lazy import: The foundry_local import happens inside bootstrap() so the application can provide helpful error messages if the SDK isn't installed Environment configuration: Model alias comes from MODEL_ALIAS environment variable or defaults to qwen2.5-0.5b Automatic hardware selection: Foundry Local picks GPU, NPU, or CPU automatically—no configuration needed The qwen2.5 model family is recommended because it supports function/tool calling, which the ToolAgent requires. For higher quality outputs, larger variants like qwen2.5-7b or qwen2.5-14b are available via the --model flag. Creating Specialised Agents With Foundry Local bootstrapped, the next step is creating agents with distinct roles. Each agent is a ChatAgent instance with carefully crafted instructions that focus it on a specific task. The Planner Agent The Planner receives a user question and available documents, then breaks the research task into concrete sub-tasks. Its instructions emphasise structured output—a numbered list of specific tasks rather than prose: from agent_framework import ChatAgent from agent_framework.openai import OpenAIChatClient def _make_client(conn: FoundryConnection) -> OpenAIChatClient: """Create an MAF OpenAIChatClient pointing at Foundry Local.""" return OpenAIChatClient( api_key=conn.api_key, base_url=conn.endpoint, model_id=conn.model_id, ) def create_planner(conn: FoundryConnection) -> ChatAgent: return ChatAgent( chat_client=_make_client(conn), name="Planner", instructions=( "You are a planning agent. Given a user's research question and a list " "of document snippets (if any), break the question into 2-4 concrete " "sub-tasks. Output ONLY a numbered list of tasks. Each task should state:\n" " • What information is needed\n" " • Which source documents might help (if known)\n" "Keep it concise — no more than 6 lines total." ), ) Notice how the instructions are explicit about output format. Multi-agent systems work best when each agent produces structured, predictable output that downstream agents can parse reliably. The Retriever Agent The Retriever receives the Planner's task list plus raw document content, then extracts and cites relevant passages. Its instructions emphasise citation format—a specific pattern that the Writer can reference later: def create_retriever(conn: FoundryConnection) -> ChatAgent: return ChatAgent( chat_client=_make_client(conn), name="Retriever", instructions=( "You are a retrieval agent. You receive a research plan AND raw document " "text from local files. Your job:\n" " 1. Identify the most relevant passages for each task in the plan.\n" " 2. Output extracted snippets with citations in the format:\n" " [filename.ext, lines X-Y]: \"quoted text…\"\n" " 3. If no relevant content exists, say so explicitly.\n" "Be precise — quote only what is relevant, keep each snippet under 100 words." ), ) The citation format [filename.ext, lines X-Y] creates a consistent contract. The Writer knows exactly how to reference source material, and human reviewers can verify claims against original documents. The Critic Agent The Critic reviews the Retriever's work, identifying gaps and contradictions. This agent serves as a quality gate before the final report and can trigger feedback loops for iterative improvement: def create_critic(conn: FoundryConnection) -> ChatAgent: return ChatAgent( chat_client=_make_client(conn), name="Critic", instructions=( "You are a critical review agent. You receive a plan and extracted snippets. " "Your job:\n" " 1. Check for gaps — are any plan tasks unanswered?\n" " 2. Check for contradictions between snippets.\n" " 3. Suggest 1-2 specific improvements or missing details.\n" "Start your response with 'GAPS FOUND' if issues exist, or 'NO GAPS' if satisfied.\n" "Then output a short numbered list of issues (or say 'No issues found')." ), ) The Critic is instructed to output GAPS FOUND or NO GAPS at the start of its response. This structured output enables the orchestrator to detect when gaps exist and trigger the feedback loop—sending the gaps back to the Retriever for additional retrieval before re-running the Critic. This iterates up to 2 times before the Writer takes over, ensuring higher quality reports. Critics are essential for production systems. Without this review step, the Writer might produce confident-sounding reports with missing information or internal contradictions. The Writer Agent The Writer receives everything—original question, plan, extracted snippets, and critic review—then produces the final report: def create_writer(conn: FoundryConnection) -> ChatAgent: return ChatAgent( chat_client=_make_client(conn), name="Writer", instructions=( "You are the final report writer. You receive:\n" " • The original question\n" " • A plan, extracted snippets with citations, and a critic review\n\n" "Produce a clear, well-structured answer (3-5 paragraphs). " "Requirements:\n" " • Cite sources using [filename.ext, lines X-Y] notation\n" " • Address any gaps the critic raised (note if unresolvable)\n" " • End with a one-sentence summary\n" "Do NOT fabricate citations — only use citations provided by the Retriever." ), ) The final instruction—"Do NOT fabricate citations"—is crucial for responsible AI. The Writer has access only to citations the Retriever provided, preventing hallucinated references that plague single-agent research systems. Implementing Sequential Orchestration With agents defined, the orchestrator connects them into a workflow. Sequential orchestration is the simpler pattern: each agent runs after the previous one completes, passing its output as input to the next agent. The implementation uses Python's async/await for clean asynchronous execution: import asyncio import time from dataclasses import dataclass, field @dataclass class StepResult: """Captures one agent step for observability.""" agent_name: str input_text: str output_text: str elapsed_sec: float @dataclass class WorkflowResult: """Final result of the entire orchestration run.""" question: str steps: list[StepResult] = field(default_factory=list) final_report: str = "" async def _run_agent(agent: ChatAgent, prompt: str) -> tuple[str, float]: """Execute a single agent and measure elapsed time.""" start = time.perf_counter() response = await agent.run(prompt) elapsed = time.perf_counter() - start return response.content, elapsed The StepResult dataclass captures everything needed for observability: what went in, what came out, and how long it took. This information is invaluable for debugging and optimisation. The sequential pipeline chains agents together, building context progressively: async def run_sequential_workflow( question: str, docs: LoadedDocuments, conn: FoundryConnection, ) -> WorkflowResult: wf = WorkflowResult(question=question) doc_block = docs.combined_text if docs.chunks else "(no documents provided)" # Step 1 — Plan planner = create_planner(conn) planner_prompt = f"User question: {question}\n\nAvailable documents:\n{doc_block}" plan_text, elapsed = await _run_agent(planner, planner_prompt) wf.steps.append(StepResult("Planner", planner_prompt, plan_text, elapsed)) # Step 2 — Retrieve retriever = create_retriever(conn) retriever_prompt = f"Plan:\n{plan_text}\n\nDocuments:\n{doc_block}" snippets_text, elapsed = await _run_agent(retriever, retriever_prompt) wf.steps.append(StepResult("Retriever", retriever_prompt, snippets_text, elapsed)) # Step 3 — Critique critic = create_critic(conn) critic_prompt = f"Plan:\n{plan_text}\n\nExtracted snippets:\n{snippets_text}" critique_text, elapsed = await _run_agent(critic, critic_prompt) wf.steps.append(StepResult("Critic", critic_prompt, critique_text, elapsed)) # Step 4 — Write writer = create_writer(conn) writer_prompt = ( f"Original question: {question}\n\n" f"Plan:\n{plan_text}\n\n" f"Extracted snippets:\n{snippets_text}\n\n" f"Critic review:\n{critique_text}" ) report_text, elapsed = await _run_agent(writer, writer_prompt) wf.steps.append(StepResult("Writer", writer_prompt, report_text, elapsed)) wf.final_report = report_text return wf Each step receives all relevant context from previous steps. The Writer gets the most comprehensive prompt—original question, plan, snippets, and critique—enabling it to produce a well-informed final report. Adding Concurrent Fan-Out and Feedback Loops Sequential orchestration works well but can be slow. When tasks are independent—neither needs the other's output—running them in parallel saves time. The demo implements this with asyncio.gather . Consider the Retriever and ToolAgent: both need the Planner's output, but neither depends on the other. Running them concurrently cuts the wait time roughly in half: async def run_concurrent_retrieval( plan_text: str, docs: LoadedDocuments, conn: FoundryConnection, ) -> tuple[str, str]: """Run Retriever and ToolAgent in parallel.""" retriever = create_retriever(conn) tool_agent = create_tool_agent(conn) doc_block = docs.combined_text if docs.chunks else "(no documents)" retriever_prompt = f"Plan:\n{plan_text}\n\nDocuments:\n{doc_block}" tool_prompt = f"Analyse the following documents for word count and keywords:\n{doc_block}" # Execute both agents concurrently (snippets_text, r_elapsed), (tool_text, t_elapsed) = await asyncio.gather( _run_agent(retriever, retriever_prompt), _run_agent(tool_agent, tool_prompt), ) return snippets_text, tool_text The asyncio.gather function runs both coroutines concurrently and returns when both complete. If the Retriever takes 3 seconds and the ToolAgent takes 1.5 seconds, the total wait is approximately 3 seconds rather than 4.5 seconds. Implementing the Feedback Loop The most sophisticated orchestration pattern is the Critic–Retriever feedback loop. When the Critic identifies gaps in the retrieved information, the orchestrator sends them back to the Retriever for additional retrieval, then re-evaluates: async def run_critic_with_feedback( plan_text: str, snippets_text: str, docs: LoadedDocuments, conn: FoundryConnection, max_iterations: int = 2, ) -> tuple[str, str]: """ Run Critic with feedback loop to Retriever. Returns (final_snippets, final_critique). """ critic = create_critic(conn) retriever = create_retriever(conn) current_snippets = snippets_text for iteration in range(max_iterations): # Run Critic critic_prompt = f"Plan:\n{plan_text}\n\nExtracted snippets:\n{current_snippets}" critique_text, _ = await _run_agent(critic, critic_prompt) # Check if gaps were found if not critique_text.upper().startswith("GAPS FOUND"): return current_snippets, critique_text # Gaps found — send back to Retriever for more extraction gap_fill_prompt = ( f"Previous snippets:\n{current_snippets}\n\n" f"Gaps identified:\n{critique_text}\n\n" f"Documents:\n{docs.combined_text}\n\n" "Extract additional relevant passages to fill these gaps." ) additional_snippets, _ = await _run_agent(retriever, gap_fill_prompt) current_snippets = f"{current_snippets}\n\n--- Gap-fill iteration {iteration + 1} ---\n{additional_snippets}" # Max iterations reached — run final critique final_critique, _ = await _run_agent(critic, f"Plan:\n{plan_text}\n\nExtracted snippets:\n{current_snippets}") return current_snippets, final_critique This feedback loop pattern significantly improves output quality. The Critic acts as a quality gate, and when standards aren't met, the system iteratively improves rather than producing incomplete results. The full workflow combines all three patterns—sequential where dependencies require it, concurrent where independence allows it, and feedback loops for quality assurance: async def run_full_workflow( question: str, docs: LoadedDocuments, conn: FoundryConnection, ) -> WorkflowResult: """ End-to-end workflow showcasing THREE orchestration patterns: 1. Planner runs first (sequential — must happen before anything else). 2. Retriever + ToolAgent run concurrently (fan-out on independent tasks). 3. Critic reviews with feedback loop (iterates with Retriever if gaps found). 4. Writer produces final report (sequential — needs everything above). """ wf = WorkflowResult(question=question) # Step 1: Planner (sequential) plan_text, elapsed = await _run_agent(create_planner(conn), planner_prompt) wf.steps.append(StepResult("Planner", planner_prompt, plan_text, elapsed)) # Step 2: Concurrent fan-out (Retriever + ToolAgent) snippets_text, tool_text = await run_concurrent_retrieval(plan_text, docs, conn) # Step 3: Critic with feedback loop final_snippets, critique_text = await run_critic_with_feedback( plan_text, snippets_text, docs, conn ) # Step 4: Writer (sequential — needs everything) writer_prompt = ( f"Original question: {question}\n\n" f"Plan:\n{plan_text}\n\n" f"Snippets:\n{final_snippets}\n\n" f"Stats:\n{tool_text}\n\n" f"Critique:\n{critique_text}" ) report_text, elapsed = await _run_agent(create_writer(conn), writer_prompt) wf.final_report = report_text return wf This hybrid approach maximises both correctness and performance. Dependencies are respected, independent work happens in parallel, and quality is ensured through iterative feedback. Implementing Tool Calling Some agents benefit from deterministic tools rather than relying entirely on LLM generation. The ToolAgent demonstrates this pattern with two utility functions: word counting and keyword extraction. MAF supports tool calling through function declarations with Pydantic type annotations: from typing import Annotated from pydantic import Field def word_count( text: Annotated[str, Field(description="The text to count words in")] ) -> int: """Count words in a text string.""" return len(text.split()) def extract_keywords( text: Annotated[str, Field(description="The text to extract keywords from")], top_n: Annotated[int, Field(description="Number of keywords to return", default=5)] ) -> list[str]: """Extract most frequent words (simple implementation).""" words = text.lower().split() # Filter common words, count frequencies, return top N word_counts = {} for word in words: if len(word) > 3: # Skip short words word_counts[word] = word_counts.get(word, 0) + 1 sorted_words = sorted(word_counts.items(), key=lambda x: x[1], reverse=True) return [word for word, count in sorted_words[:top_n]] The Annotated type with Field descriptions provides metadata that MAF uses to generate function schemas for the LLM. When the model needs to count words, it invokes the word_count tool rather than attempting to count in its response (which LLMs notoriously struggle with). The ToolAgent receives these functions in its constructor: def create_tool_agent(conn: FoundryConnection) -> ChatAgent: return ChatAgent( chat_client=_make_client(conn), name="ToolHelper", instructions=( "You are a utility agent. Use the provided tools to compute " "word counts or extract keywords when asked. Return the tool " "output directly — do not embellish." ), tools=[word_count, extract_keywords], ) This pattern—combining LLM reasoning with deterministic tools—produces more reliable results. The LLM decides when to use tools and how to interpret results, but the actual computation happens in Python where precision is guaranteed. Running the Demo With the architecture explained, here's how to run the demo yourself. Setup takes about five minutes. Prerequisites You'll need Python 3.10 or higher and Foundry Local installed on your machine. Install Foundry Local by following the instructions at github.com/microsoft/Foundry-Local, then verify it works: foundry --help Installation Clone the repository and set up a virtual environment: git clone https://github.com/leestott/agentframework--foundrylocal.git cd agentframework--foundrylocal python -m venv .venv # Windows .venv\Scripts\activate # macOS / Linux source .venv/bin/activate pip install -r requirements.txt copy .env.example .env CLI Usage Run the research workflow from the command line: python -m src.app "What are the key features of Foundry Local and how does it compare to cloud inference?" --docs ./data You'll see agent-by-agent progress with timing information: Web Interface For a visual experience, launch the Flask-based web UI: python -m src.app.web Open http://localhost:5000 in your browser. The web UI provides real-time streaming of agent progress, a visual pipeline showing both orchestration patterns, and an interactive demos tab showcasing tool calling capabilities. CLI Options The CLI supports several options for customisation: --docs: Folder of local documents to search (default: ./data) --model: Foundry Local model alias (default: qwen2.5-0.5b) --mode: full for sequential + concurrent, or sequential for simpler pipeline --log-level: DEBUG, INFO, WARNING, or ERROR For higher quality output, try larger models: python -m src.app "Explain multi-agent benefits" --docs ./data --model qwen2.5-7b Validate Tool/Function Calling Run the dedicated tool calling demo to verify function calling works: python -m src.app.tool_demo This tests direct tool function calls ( word_count , extract_keywords ), LLM-driven tool calling via the ToolAgent, and multi-tool requests in a single prompt. Run Tests Run the smoke tests to verify your setup: pip install pytest pytest-asyncio pytest tests/ -v The smoke tests check document loading, tool functions, and configuration—they do not require a running Foundry Local service. Interactive Demos: Exploring MAF Capabilities Beyond the research workflow, the web UI includes five interactive demos showcasing different MAF capabilities. Each demonstrates a specific pattern with suggested prompts and real-time results. Weather Tools demonstrates multi-tool calling with an agent that provides weather information, forecasts, city comparisons, and activity recommendations. The agent uses four different tools to construct comprehensive responses. Math Calculator shows precise calculation through tool calling. The agent uses arithmetic, percentage, unit conversion, compound interest, and statistics tools instead of attempting mental math—eliminating the calculation errors that plague LLM-only approaches. Sentiment Analyser performs structured text analysis, detecting sentiment, emotions, key phrases, and word frequency through lexicon-based tools. The results are deterministic and verifiable. Code Reviewer analyses code for style issues, complexity problems, potential bugs, and improvement opportunities. This demonstrates how tool calling can extend AI capabilities into domain-specific analysis. Multi-Agent Debate showcases sequential orchestration with interdependent outputs. Three agents—one arguing for a position, one against, and a moderator—debate a topic. Each agent receives the previous agent's output, demonstrating how multi-agent systems can explore topics from multiple perspectives. Troubleshooting Common issues and their solutions: foundry: command not found : Install Foundry Local from github.com/microsoft/Foundry-Local foundry-local-sdk is not installed : Run pip install foundry-local-sdk Model download is slow: First download can be large. It's cached for future runs. No documents found warning: Add .txt or .md files to the --docs folder Agent output is low quality: Try a larger model alias, e.g. --model phi-3.5-mini Web UI won't start: Ensure Flask is installed: pip install flask Port 5000 in use: The web UI uses port 5000. Stop other services or set PORT=8080 environment variable Key Takeaways Multi-agent systems decompose complex tasks: Specialised agents (Planner, Retriever, Critic, Writer) produce better results than single-agent approaches by focusing each agent on what it does best Local AI eliminates cloud dependencies: Foundry Local provides on-device inference with automatic hardware acceleration, keeping all data on your machine MAF simplifies agent development: The ChatAgent abstraction handles message threading, tool execution, and response parsing, letting you focus on agent behaviour Three orchestration patterns serve different needs: Sequential pipelines maintain dependencies; concurrent fan-out parallelises independent work; feedback loops enable iterative quality improvement Feedback loops improve quality: The Critic–Retriever feedback loop catches gaps and contradictions, iterating until quality standards are met rather than producing incomplete results Tool calling adds precision: Deterministic functions for counting, calculation, and analysis complement LLM reasoning for more reliable results The same patterns scale to production: This demo architecture—bootstrapping, agent creation, orchestration—applies directly to real-world research and analysis systems Conclusion and Next Steps The Local Research & Synthesis Desk demonstrates that sophisticated multi-agent AI systems don't require cloud infrastructure. With Microsoft Agent Framework for orchestration and Foundry Local for inference, you can build production-quality workflows that run entirely on your hardware. The architecture patterns shown here—specialised agents with clear roles, sequential pipelines for dependent tasks, concurrent fan-out for independent work, feedback loops for quality assurance, and tool calling for precision—form a foundation for building more sophisticated systems. Consider extending this demo with: Additional agents for fact-checking, summarisation, or domain-specific analysis Richer tool integrations connecting to databases, APIs, or local services Human-in-the-loop approval gates before producing final reports Different model sizes for different agents based on task complexity Start with the demo, understand the patterns, then apply them to your own research and analysis challenges. The future of AI isn't just cloud models—it's intelligent systems that run wherever your data lives. Resources Local Research & Synthesis Desk Repository – Full source code with documentation and examples Foundry Local – Official site for on-device AI inference Foundry Local GitHub Repository – Installation instructions and CLI reference Foundry Local SDK Documentation – Python SDK reference on Microsoft Learn Microsoft Agent Framework Documentation – Official MAF tutorials and user guides MAF Orchestrations Overview – Deep dive into workflow patterns agent-framework-core on PyPI – Python package for MAF Agent Framework Samples – Additional MAF examples and patterns
