Go Cloud Native with Azure Container Apps
In this article, we discuss how Azure Container Apps is purpose-built to support cloud native applications. This post is part of the Zero To Hero series for #ServerlessSeptember, a month-long initiative to learn, use, and celebrate, all things Serverless On Azure. Check out the main site at https://aka.ms/serverless-september to read other posts, participate in a Cloud Skills Challenge, explore a Serverless Hack and participate in live Q&A with product teams on #AskTheExperIntroducing Azure Container Apps Express!
Three years ago, a 15-second cold start was industry-leading. Today, developers and AI agents expect sub-second. The speed bar has moved, and the tooling needs to move with it. After running Azure Container Apps for years, we've learned something important: for most developers, the ACA environment is an unnecessary construct. It adds provisioning time, configuration surface, and cognitive overhead — when all you really want is to run your app with scaling, networking, and operations handled for you. At the same time, a new class of workloads has emerged. Agent-first platforms — systems where AI agents deploy endpoints on demand, spin up tool-use APIs, and tear them down when work is done — demand an even more radical focus on speed and simplicity. Every second of provisioning delay is wasted agent productivity. Today, we're launching Azure Container Apps Express in Public Preview — the fastest, simplest way to go from a container image to an internet-reachable app on Azure, ready for many production-style workloads. What Is ACA Express? ACA Express removes the infrastructure decisions. There's no environment to provision, no networking to configure, no scaling rules to write. You bring a container image, Express handles everything else. Behind the scenes, Express runs your container on pre-provisioned capacity with sensible defaults baked in — so you skip environment setup without giving up ACA's serverless model. There's more coming in this space soon — keep watching. Here's what that means in practice: Instant provisioning — your app is running in seconds, not minutes Sub-second cold starts — fast enough for interactive UIs and on-demand agent endpoints Scale to and from zero — automatic, no configuration required (full scaling controls coming soon) Per-second billing — pay only for what you use Production-ready defaults — ingress, secrets, environment variables, and observability are built in Express is purpose-built for two audiences: developers who want to ship fast (SaaS apps, APIs, web dashboards, prototypes) and agents that deploy on demand (MCP servers, tool-use endpoints, multi-step workflow APIs, human-in-the-loop UIs). If you've ever waited for an ACA environment to provision, only to realize you didn't need half of the configuration options it asked you for — Express is your answer. What You Can Do Today Note: West Central US is currently the only available region. We will expand to new regions through the coming days. Express is in Public Preview starting today. It's a deliberate early ship — there's a meaningful feature gap compared to the existing Azure Container Apps offering, and we're filling it fast. New capabilities are landing on a rapid cadence throughout the preview, and by Microsoft Build in June, Express should be close to feature-complete. For the current list of supported features, known gaps, and what's on the way, see the Express documentation. We'd rather put valuable technology in your hands early and iterate with you than wait behind closed doors for perfection. Who Is Express For? Scenario Why Express SaaS apps and APIs Deploy and scale without infrastructure planning AI app frontends Chat UIs and copilot frontends that scale with usage spikes MCP servers Expose API endpoints for AI agents in seconds Agent workflows Spin up endpoints on demand, tear down when done Prototypes and startups Go from idea to production in minutes Web dashboards Internal tools with instant availability Get Started Express is available now in Public Preview. Try it: Azure Container Apps Express overview — concepts, capabilities, and the current feature support matrix Deploy your first app with the Azure CLI — step-by-step quickstart New Azure Container Apps Portal — create and manage Express apps alongside your existing Container Apps resources Have questions? Check the Azure Container Apps Express FAQ for answers to common questions about pricing, limits, regions, and the road to GA. We're building Express in the open and we want to hear from you. Tell us what features matter most, what works, and what doesn't — reach out on the Azure Container Apps GitHub or in the comments below.
Observability on Azure Container Apps
Managing the infrastructure needed to operate numerous containers at scale can be challenging, and Azure Container Apps is designed to address this exact issue. Azure Container Apps offers a serverless platform enabling you to scale and run multiple containers effortlessly, without the need to manage the infrastructure behind them. It’s ideal for microservices architecture, and is also commonly utilized for event-driven processing, background tasks, and various other applications. A question I often get is, how do I approach observability in Azure Container Apps? My goal in this post is to outline what it takes to have an observable Azure Container Apps Environment.
How to remove secrets from Container Apps linked to ACR
Azure Container Apps allows your application to securely store sensitive configuration values. Once secrets are defined at the application level, secured values are available to revisions in your container apps. Additionally, you can reference secured values inside scale rules. This blog provides a detailed, step-by-step procedure for removing secrets associated with an Azure Container Registry (ACR). In this example, we will walk through the process of creating a Container App with an image reference from the ACR, which automatically generates a secret. We will then attempt to remove this secret and observe its behaviour throughout the process. Secrets are scoped to an application, outside of any specific revision of an application. Adding, removing, or changing secrets doesn't generate new revisions. Each application revision can reference one or more secrets. Multiple revisions can reference the same secret(s). An updated or deleted secret doesn't automatically affect existing revisions in your app. When a secret is updated or deleted, you can respond to changes in one of two ways: Deploy a new revision. Restart an existing revision. Before you delete a secret, deploy a new revision that no longer references the old secret. Then deactivate all revisions that reference the secret. Create an Azure Container Registry: az acr create \ --name "$CONTAINER_REGISTRY_NAME"\ --resource-group "$RESOURCE_GROUP"\ --location "$LOCATION"\ --sku Basic \ --admin-enabled true Explanation: This command creates an Azure Container Registry (ACR) with the specified name, resource group and location. The --sku Basic specifies the pricing tier for the registry, and --admin-enabled true enables admin access to the registry. Build and push image from a Dockerfile. Now use Azure Container Registry to build and push an image. First, create a local working directory and then create a Dockerfile named Dockerfile with the single line: FROM mcr.microsoft.com/hello-world. This is a simple example to build a Linux container image from the hello-world image hosted at Microsoft Container Registry. You can create your own standard Dockerfile and build images for other platforms. If you are working at a bash shell, create the Dockerfile with the following command: echo "FROM mcr.microsoft.com/hello-world" > Dockerfile Run the az acr build command, which builds the image and, after the image is successfully built, pushes it to your registry. The following example builds and pushes the sample/hello-world:v1 image. The . at the end of the command sets the location of the Dockerfile, in this case the current directory. az acr build --image sample/hello-world:v1 \ --registry myContainerRegistry008 \ --file Dockerfile . Create and Deploy the Container App from ACR Create and deploy your container app with the containerapp up command. This command will: Create the resource group Create the Container Apps environment Create the Log Analytics workspace Create and deploy the container app using a public container image Note that if any of these resources already exist, the command will use them instead of creating new ones. az containerapp up \ --name my-container-app \ --resource-group my-container-apps \ --location centralus \ --environment 'my-container-apps' \ --image azuredockerregistry.azurecr.io/image:latest \ --target-port 80 \ --ingress external \ --query properties.configuration.ingress.fqdn 1. Once the Container App gets created , check if there are any secrets added to your container app. 2. If you attempt to delete an existing secret and encounter an error, it's because there is a running revision that still references the secret. 3. In this case, ensure you deactivate all existing revisions that reference the secret and create a new revision that references an image from a public repository (e.g., docker.io). 4. After verifying that there are no references to secrets in existing revisions, you can use the `az containerapp registry remove` command to remove a registry associated with your container app. az containerapp registry remove -n MyContainerapp -g MyResourceGroup --server MyContainerappRegistry.azurecr.io If successful, the command will return "Registry Successfully Removed." 5. Upon checking the "Secrets" section in the portal you should see the secret removed. 6. If you continue to see secrets in the portal UI even after following the above steps, now try deleting the secrets directly using the delete option in the portal. It's crucial to manage secrets carefully to maintain the security and integrity of your Azure Container Apps and associated resources. !!HAPPY LEARNING !!
The Swarm Diaries: What Happens When You Let AI Agents Loose on a Codebase
The Idea Single-agent coding assistants are impressive, but they have a fundamental bottleneck: they think serially. Ask one to build a full CLI app with a database layer, a command parser, pretty output, and tests, and it’ll grind through each piece one by one. Industry benchmarks bear this out: AIMultiple’s 2026 agentic coding benchmark measured Claude Code CLI completing full-stack tasks in ~12 minutes on average, with other CLI agents ranging from 3 to 14 minutes depending on the tool. A three-week real-world test by Render.com found single-agent coding workflows taking 10–30 minutes for multi-file feature work. But these subtasks don’t depend on each other. A storage agent doesn’t need to wait for the CLI agent. A test writer doesn’t need to watch the renderer work. What if they all ran at the same time? The hypothesis was straightforward: a swarm of specialized agents should beat a single generalist on at least two of three pillars — speed, quality, or cost. The architecture looked clean on a whiteboard: The reality was messier. But first, let me explain the machinery that makes this possible. How It’s Wired: Brains and Hands The system runs on a brains-and-hands split. The brain is an Azure Durable Task Scheduler (DTS) orchestration — a deterministic workflow that decomposes the goal into a task DAG, fans agents out in parallel, merges their branches, and runs quality gates. If the worker crashes mid-run, DTS replays from the last checkpoint. No work lost. Simple LLM calls — the planner that decomposes the goal, the judge that scores the output — run as lightweight DTS activities. One call, no tools, cheap. The hands are Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF) agents, each running in its own Docker container. One sandbox per agent, each with its own git clone, filesystem, and toolset. When an agent’s LLM decides to edit a file or run a build, the call routes through middleware to that agent’s isolated container. No two agents ever touch the same workspace. These complex agents — coders, researchers, the integrator — run as DTS durable entities with full agentic loops and turn-level checkpointing. The split matters because LLM reasoning and code execution have completely different reliability profiles. The brain checkpoints and replays deterministically. The hands are ephemeral — if a container dies, spin up a new one and replay the agent’s last turn. This separation is what lets you run five agents in parallel without them stepping on each other’s git branches, build artifacts, or file handles. It’s also what made every bug I was about to encounter debuggable. When something broke, I always knew which side broke — the orchestration logic, or the agent behavior. That distinction saved me more hours than any other design decision. The First Run Produced Nothing After hours of vibe-coding the foundation — Pydantic models, skill prompts, a prompt builder, a context store, sixteen architectural decisions documented in ADRs — I wired up the seven-phase orchestration and hit go. All five agents returned empty responses. Every single one. The logs showed agents “running” but producing zero output. I stared at the code for an embarrassingly long time before I found it. The planner returned task IDs as integers — 1, 2, 3 . The sandbox provisioner stored them as string keys — "1", "2", "3" . When the orchestrator did sandbox_map.get(1) , it got None . No sandbox meant no middleware. The agents were literally talking to thin air — making LLM calls with no tools attached, like a carpenter showing up to a job site with no hammer. The fix was one line. The lesson was bigger: LLMs don’t respect type contracts. They’ll return an integer when you expect a string, a list when you expect a dict, and a confident hallucination when they have nothing to say. Every boundary between AI-generated data and deterministic systems needs defensive normalization. This would not be the last time I learned that lesson. The Seven-Minute Merge Once agents actually ran and produced code, a new problem emerged. I watched the logs on a run that took twenty-one minutes total. Four agents finished their work in about twelve minutes. The remaining seven minutes were the LLM integrator merging four branches — eight to thirty tool calls per merge, using the premium model, to do what git merge --no-edit does in five seconds. I was paying for a premium LLM to run git diff , read both sides of every file, and write a merged version. For branches that merged cleanly. With zero conflicts. The fix was obvious in retrospect: try git merge first. If it succeeds — great, five seconds, done. Only call the LLM integrator when there are actual conflicts to resolve. Merge time dropped from seven minutes to under thirty seconds. I felt a little silly for not doing this from the start. When Agents Build Different Apps The merge speedup felt like a win until I looked at what was actually being merged. The storage agent had built a JSON-file backend. The CLI agent had written its commands against SQLite. Both modules were well-written. They compiled individually. Together, nothing worked — the CLI tried to import a Storage class that didn’t exist in the JSON backend. This was the moment I realized the agents weren’t really a team. They were strangers who happened to be assigned to the same project, each interpreting the goal in their own way. The fix was the single most impactful change in the entire project: contract-first planning. Instead of just decomposing the goal into tasks, the planner now generates API contracts — function signatures, class shapes, data model definitions — and injects them into every agent’s prompt. “Here’s what the Storage class looks like. Here’s what Task looks like. Build against these interfaces.” Before contracts, three of six branches conflicted and the quality score was 28. After contracts, zero of four branches conflicted and the score hit 68. It turns out the plan isn’t just a plan. In a multi-agent system, the plan is the product. A brilliant plan with mediocre agents produces working code. A vague plan with brilliant agents produces beautiful components that don’t fit together. The Agent Who Lied PR #4 came back with what looked like a solid result. The test writer reported three test files with detailed coverage summaries. The JSON output was meticulous — file names, function names, which modules each test covered. Then I checked tool_call_count: 0 . The test writer hadn’t written a single file. It hadn’t even opened a file. It received zero tools — because the skill loader normalized test_writer to underscores while the tool registry used test-writer with hyphens. The lookup failed silently. The agent got no tools, couldn’t do any work, and did what LLMs do when they can’t fulfill a request but feel pressure to answer: it made something up. Confidently. This happened in three of our first four evaluation runs. I called them “phantom agents” — they showed up to work, clocked in, filed a report, and went home without lifting a finger. The fix had two parts. First, obviously, fix the hyphen/underscore normalization. Second, and more importantly: add a zero-tool-call guard. If an agent that should be writing files reports success with zero tool calls, don’t believe it. Nudge it and retry. The deeper lesson stuck with me: agents will never tell you they failed. They’ll report success with elaborate detail. You have to verify what they actually did, not what they said they did. The Integrator Who Took Shortcuts Even with contracts preventing mismatched architectures, merge conflicts still happened when multiple agents touched the same files. The LLM integrator’s job was to resolve these conflicts intelligently, preserving logic from both sides. Instead, facing a gnarly conflict in models.py , it ran: git restore --source=HEAD -- models.py One command. Silently destroyed one agent’s entire implementation — the Task class, the constants, the schema version — gone. The integrator committed the lobotomized file and reported “merge resolved successfully.” The downstream damage was immediate. storage.py imported symbols that no longer existed. The judge scored 43 out of 100. The fixer agent had to spend five minutes reconstructing the data model from scratch. But that wasn’t even the worst shortcut. On other runs, the integrator replaced conflicting code with: def add_task(desc, priority=0): pass # TODO: implement storage layer When an LLM is asked to resolve a hard conflict, it’ll sometimes pick the easiest valid output — delete everything and write a placeholder. Technically valid Python. Functionally a disaster. Fixing this required explicit prompt guardrails: Never run git restore --source=HEAD Never replace implementations with pass # TODO placeholders When two implementations conflict, keep the more complete one After resolving each file, read it back and verify the expected symbols still exist The lesson: LLMs optimize for the path of least resistance. Under pressure, “valid” and “useful” diverge sharply. Demolishing the House for a Leaky Faucet When the judge scored a run below 70, the original retry strategy was: start over. Re-plan. Re-provision five sandboxes. Re-run all agents. Re-merge. Re-judge. Seven minutes and a non-trivial cloud bill, all because one agent missed an import statement. This was absurd. Most failures weren’t catastrophic — they were close. A missing model field. A broken import. An unhandled error case. The code was 90% right. Starting from scratch was like tearing down a house because the bathroom faucet leaks. So I built the fixer agent: a premium-tier model that receives the judge’s specific complaints and makes surgical edits directly on the integrator’s branch. No new sandboxes, no new branches, no merge step. The first time it ran, the score jumped from 43 to 89.5. Three minutes instead of seven. And it solved the problem that actually existed, rather than hoping a second roll of the dice would land better. Of course, the fixer’s first implementation had its own bug — it ran in a new sandbox, created a new branch, and occasionally conflicted with the code it was trying to fix. The fix to the fixer: just edit in place on the integrator’s existing sandbox. No branch, no merge, no drama. How Others Parallelize (and Why We Went Distributed) Most multi-agent coding frameworks today parallelize by spawning agents as local processes on a single developer machine. Depending on the framework, there’s typically a lead agent or orchestrator that breaks the task down into subtasks, spins up new agents to handle each piece, and combines their work when they finish — often through parallel TMux sessions or subprocess pools sharing a local filesystem. It’s simple, it’s fast to set up, and for many tasks it works. But local parallelization hits a ceiling. All agents share one machine’s CPU, memory, and disk I/O. Five agents each running npm install or cargo build compete for the same 32 GB of RAM. There’s no true filesystem isolation — two agents can clobber the same file if the orchestrator doesn’t carefully sequence writes. Recovery from a crash means restarting the entire local process tree. And scaling from 3 agents to 10 means buying a bigger machine. Our swarm takes a different approach: fully distributed execution. Each agent runs in its own Docker container with its own filesystem, git clone, and compute allocation — provisioned on AKS, ACA, or any container host. Four agents get four independent resource pools. If one container dies, DTS replays that agent from its last checkpoint in a fresh container without affecting the others. Git branch-per-agent isolation means zero filesystem conflicts by design. The trade-off is overhead: container provisioning, network latency, and the merge step add wall-clock time that a local TMux setup avoids. On a small two-agent task, local parallelization on a fast laptop probably wins. But for tasks with 4+ agents doing real work — cloning repos, installing dependencies, running builds and tests — independent resource pools and crash isolation matter. Our benchmarks on a 4-agent helpdesk system showed the swarm completing in ~8 minutes with zero resource contention, producing 1,029 lines across 14 files with 4 clean branch merges. The Scorecard After all of this, did the swarm actually beat a single agent? I ran head-to-head benchmarks: same prompt, same model (GPT-5-nano), solo agent vs. swarm, scored by a Sonnet 4.6 judge on a four-criterion rubric. Two tasks — a simple URL shortener (Render.com’s benchmark prompt) and a complex helpdesk ticket system. All runs are public — you can review every line of generated code: Task Solo Agent PR Swarm PR URL Shortener PR #1 PR #2 Helpdesk System PR #3 PR #4 URL Shortener (Simple) Helpdesk System (Complex) Quality (rubric, /5) Solo 1.9 → Swarm 2.5 (+32%) Solo 2.3 → Swarm 2.95 (+28%) Speed Solo 2.5 min → Swarm 5.5 min (2.2×) Solo 1.75 min → Swarm ~8 min (~4.5×) Tokens 7.7K → 30K (3.9×) 11K → 39K (3.4×) The pattern held across both tasks: +28–32% quality improvement, at the cost of 2–4× more time and ~3.5× more tokens. On the complex task, the quality gains broadened — the swarm produced better code organization (3/5 vs 2/5), actually wrote tests (code:test ratio 0 → 0.15), and generated 5× more files with cleaner decomposition. On the simple task, the gap came entirely from security practices: environment variables, parameterized queries, and proper .gitignore rules that the solo agent skipped entirely. Industry benchmarks from AIMultiple and Render.com show single CLI agents averaging 10–15 minutes on comparable full-stack tasks. Our swarm runs in 5–12 minutes depending on parallelizability — but the real win is quality, not speed. Specialized agents with a narrow, well-defined scope tend to be more thorough: the solo agent skipped tests and security practices entirely, while the swarm's dedicated agents actually addressed them. Two out of three pillars — with a caveat the size of your task. On small, tightly-coupled problems, just use one good agent. On larger, parallelizable work with three or more independent modules? The swarm earns its keep. What I Actually Learned The Rules That Stuck Contract-first planning. Define interfaces before writing implementations. The plan isn’t just a guide — it’s the product. Deterministic before LLM. Try git merge before calling the LLM integrator. Run ruff check before asking an agent to debug. Use code when you can; use AI when you must. Validate actions, not claims. An agent that reports “merge resolved successfully” may have deleted everything. Check tool call counts. Read the actual diff. Trust nothing. Cheap recovery over expensive retries. A fixer agent that patches one file beats re-running five agents from scratch. The cost of failure should be proportional to the failure. Not every problem needs a swarm. If the task fits in one agent’s context window, adding four more just adds overhead. The sweet spot is 3+ genuinely independent modules. The Bigger Picture The biggest surprise? Building a multi-agent AI system is more about software engineering than AI engineering. The hard problems weren’t prompt design or model selection — they were contracts between components, isolation of concerns, idempotent operations, observability, and recovery strategies. Principles that have been around since the 1970s. The agents themselves are almost interchangeable. Swap GPT for Claude, change the temperature, fine-tune the system prompt — it barely matters if your orchestration is broken. What matters is how you decompose work, how you share context, how you merge results, and how you recover from failure. Get the engineering right, and the AI just works. Get it wrong, and no model on earth will save you. By the Numbers The codebase is ~7,400 lines of Python across 230 tests and 141 commits. Over 10+ evaluation runs, the swarm processed a combined ~200K+ tokens, merged 20+ branches, and resolved conflicts ranging from trivial (package.json version bumps) to gnarly (overlapping data models). It’s built on Azure Durable Task Scheduler, Microsoft Agent Framework, and containerized sandboxes that run anywhere Docker does — AKS, ACA, or a plain docker run on your laptop. And somewhere in those 141 commits is a one-line fix for an integer-vs-string bug that took me an embarrassingly long time to find. References Azure Durable Task Scheduler — Deterministic workflow orchestration with replay, checkpointing, and fan-out/fan-in patterns. Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF) — Python agent framework for tool-calling, middleware, and structured output. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) — Managed Kubernetes for running containerized agent workloads at scale. Azure Container Apps (ACA) — Serverless container platform for simpler deployments. Azure OpenAI Service — Hosts the GPT models used by planner, coder, and judge agents. Built with Azure DTS, Microsoft Agent Framework, and containerized sandboxes (Docker, AKS, ACA — your choice). And a lot of grep through log files.
