Token Limit Exceeded? What's Actually Going On and What to Do About It ?
Hi All, Based on some recent experience across the organisation with token limit issues, I wanted to put my thoughts down and actually dig into what's happening under the hood, rather than just chalking it up to "we need a bigger plan." If you work anywhere near the Microsoft ecosystem these days, you're probably touching more AI tools than you realize. Copilot in Word and Excel, GitHub Copilot while you code, Copilot Studio if you're building agents, maybe Security Copilot or Copilot for Sales depending on your role, and increasingly Azure AI Foundry if your team is building anything custom. I work across a good chunk of this stack day to day, and at some point, almost everyone runs into the same wall: "Token limit exceeded." "You've reached your usage limit." "Upgrade to continue." The first instinct is usually to assume you did something wrong wrote too much, uploaded too big a file, or just need a fatter subscription. Sometimes that's the actual story. But honestly, often, that error message is standing in for three completely different problems that all happen to look identical from the outside. One is about how much text a model can physically process at once. One is about your license or credits running dry. And one has nothing to do with size at all it's just about how fast you're sending requests. Once you know which of these three, you're dealing with, the fix becomes obvious. Until then, "upgrade your plan" feels like the only lever you've got even when it isn't. This post walks through what a token is, why Microsoft's various Copilots each handle this differently, and what habits genuinely cut down on these interruptions instead of just throwing money at the problem. Part 1: So What Is a Token, Really? A token isn't a word, and it isn't a character it's somewhere in between. It's the small chunk of text a model's tokenizer breaks your input into before it can do anything with it. Take a word like "unbelievable." A tokenizer might split it into three pieces something like "un," "believ," and "able." Short, everyday words usually come out as a single token. But code, technical jargon, acronyms, and non-English text tend to fragment into a lot more tokens than you'd guess just by looking at the word count. This is why every AI tool has a ceiling on how much it can handle in one go, and that ceiling isn't measured in words or characters it's measured in tokens. Your prompt, any documents or emails it pulls in as context, the back-and-forth history of your conversation, and the response itself all draw from the same pool. Once that pool runs dry, something has to give: the tool truncates, rejects the request outright, or quietly summarizes older context to make room. The part that trips people up: token count doesn't map cleanly to word count. A short, dense paragraph full of code or acronyms can eat up more tokens than a much longer plain-English message. Part 2: Three Different Limits, One Confusing Error Message This isn't always obvious upfront, even to a lot of admins managing these tools: "token limit exceeded" is really a stand-in phrase for three separate limits, and they don't behave the same way. This isn't unique to Microsoft either every major AI platform bundles these same three things behind similarly vague error messages. Microsoft's stack just makes a good case study because so many of us touch multiple pieces of it in the same week. The context window is the ceiling on how much text a specific model can process in a single request everything from your prompt to retrieved documents to chat history. This is tied to the model itself, not your subscription. Swap from one model to another inside the same tool, and this ceiling can move without you doing anything differently. Your license, credits, or feature allowance is a completely separate thing. This is what Microsoft 365 Copilot plans track through AI credits and feature limits, and it's what Copilot Studio measures through Copilot credits at the environment level. A single action summarizing an inbox, generating an agent response, running an analysis deducts from this pool regardless of how small your actual prompt felt. Run out, and you get blocked, even if you're nowhere near any context window limit. The rate limit is about speed, not size. Copilot Studio, for instance, enforces quotas measured in requests per minute or per hour to keep the system stable under load. Send messages too quickly, which happens easily with automations, flows, or bots, and you can get throttled even with a tiny prompt and plenty of credits left. The reason this matters: a plan upgrade only ever fixes the second one. If you're actually running into the model's context window or getting rate-limited, paying for a bigger license won't change anything, and that mismatch is exactly where most of the frustration comes from. Part 3: How This Plays Out Across the Microsoft AI Stack The Microsoft ecosystem isn't one AI tool wearing different outfits it's genuinely several different systems, each handling tokens and limits in its own way. Here's a tour of the ones people run into most. Microsoft 365 Copilot (the one living inside Word, Excel, Outlook, Teams) doesn't work off a single published token number the way a developer tool would. Instead, it dynamically pulls together your prompt, recent chat history, and relevant snippets retrieved from Microsoft Graph your files, emails, and messages and quietly summarizes or drops older material to stay within bounds. Where this usually breaks isn't the context window at all; it's the AI credit and feature-limit system running out, often without much warning until you're mid-task. GitHub Copilot Chat is more like a traditional developer tool. It has a fixed, published token window tied to whichever model you've selected, and that limit applies consistently whether you're in the browser, VS Code, or the CLI. The failure mode here is usually a long conversation or a big multi-file context quietly creeping past that ceiling. Copilot Studio, where a lot of custom agent-building happens, runs on Copilot credits per interaction, plus its own requests-per-minute and requests-per-hour quotas at the environment level. If you're grounding an agent in SharePoint content, there's also a separate file-size ceiling to watch content over a certain size can get silently excluded from generative answers depending on your tenant's licensing. Azure AI Foundry (recently renamed to Microsoft Foundry, in case you've seen both names floating around) is where this gets more directly in your control. If your team is building custom applications on top of Azure OpenAI or other models in the Foundry catalog, which now includes everything from GPT to Phi to Claude to Llama, you're working with explicit, published context windows per model, and you're billed per token rather than per credit. It's a different mental model entirely: less "you hit a wall," more "you're paying by the word, so design accordingly." Security Copilot, if your org uses it for threat analysis and incident response, runs on its own capacity model pooled compute units at the tenant level rather than a simple per-user cap. It's easy to assume this behaves like M365 Copilot license limits; it doesn't. Copilot for Sales, embedded in Outlook and Teams for CRM-connected work, and Copilot in Power BI, which now goes beyond generating summaries to actually helping build and refine semantic models, both draw from their own feature-specific allowances layered on top of whatever base Microsoft 365 or Power Platform license you're on. And then there's the multi-model wrinkle that trips up teams the most: because tools like Copilot Studio and GitHub Copilot let you choose between GPT-based models, Claude, and others, the exact same prompt can have a different effective context window and a different token cost purely based on which model handled it that day. This is a big, underrated reason behind the "it worked fine yesterday, why not now" complaint. Part 4: What Actually Helps ? Some of this is genuinely outside your control, but a fair amount isn't. If you're just using these tools day to day, the single biggest habit shift is not letting conversations run forever. Long threads in Copilot Chat or Copilot Studio keep accumulating history, and that history eats into the same budget as whatever you're asking right now. Starting fresh periodically costs you nothing and buys back a lot of headroom. Large documents are worth splitting up before you feed them in, especially for SharePoint-grounded agents, where oversized files can get quietly excluded rather than cleanly rejected you won't necessarily know it happened unless you're looking for it. And it's worth resisting the urge to default to the heaviest, most capable model for every single task. Lighter models are usually faster, cheaper, and often sit under a more generous limit than the flagship ones, and most everyday tasks genuinely don't need the biggest model available. Before you go asking IT for a license upgrade, it's worth a quick sanity check on which limit you actually hit. If it's a rate limit, waiting a minute and retrying usually solves it outright. If it's a context window problem, trimming your prompt or starting a new session fixes it. An upgrade only helps if you've genuinely run out of credits or feature allowance, and that's worth confirming before you file the request. If you're on the building side Copilot Studio agents, Foundry applications, anything with RAG-style grounding a couple of things pay off quickly. Keep an eye on credit or token consumption proactively rather than discovering it's gone when the agent goes down mid-conversation. Be deliberate about what goes into system prompts and orchestration instructions, since those draw from the same budget as the end user's actual message, often invisibly to whoever's chatting with the agent. And spend real time getting chunk size right for knowledge sources too large and you're burning budget on irrelevant context, too small and the agent loses the thread. Part 5: Quick Checklist Before You Escalate Is this actually a context window problem -prompt, history, and attachments too big for the model in use? Have you genuinely run out of credits or feature allowance on your plan? Could this be a rate limit -too many requests too fast, especially from a flow or automation? Did the underlying model change since last time, quietly shifting the effective window? For Studio or Foundry work, is this a tenant or environment-level limit rather than something tied to you personally? Closing Thoughts Tokenization is one of those things that stays completely invisible right up until it isn't. Across a stack as sprawling as Microsoft's M365 Copilot, GitHub Copilot, Copilot Studio, Foundry, Security Copilot, and everything layered on top "token limit exceeded" almost never means one single thing. It means you've hit one of three very different walls, and each one needs a different response. If your team builds or maintains any of these tools, this is genuinely worth putting in front of people early. Most of the "why did this break" tickets in this space aren't about tokens at all. They're about nobody knowing which limit actually got hit, or where in this increasingly large ecosystem it happened. I'm curious how this shows up for others has your team standardized on one model across these tools, or are you juggling several depending on the task? I'd love to hear what patterns you've run into. Cheers, and happy reading. - By Surya Vennapusa, MCTCustomer Offerings: Solution Optimization for GitHub Copilot
Introduction As Microsoft Cloud Solution Architects, we are increasingly asked by engineering leaders, platform teams, finance stakeholders, and GitHub administrators how they can scale GitHub Copilot while keeping usage visible and costs predictable. The question is no longer simply how many licenses have been assigned. Agentic experiences, model choice, context size, reasoning level, and task complexity can all influence consumption. To address this challenge, Microsoft customers can engage their account team to request a Solution Optimization for GitHub Copilot engagement. The engagement is designed to help customers create visibility, establish practical cost guardrails, and improve the quality and efficiency of GitHub Copilot usage. The objective is not to minimize every token; it is to help each interaction produce useful outcomes with the right level of capability and control. What changed with GitHub Copilot billing? As of June 1, 2026, GitHub Copilot moved from premium request units to usage-based billing with GitHub AI Credits. When a user interacts with an AI-powered Copilot feature, the interaction can consume input tokens, output tokens, and cached tokens. The model used and the number of tokens processed determine the AI credit consumption, where one AI credit represents $0.01 USD. Area What customers should know Included usage Copilot Business includes 1,900 AI credits per licensed user per month, while Copilot Enterprise includes 3,900. These credits are pooled at the billing entity level. Promotional period At the time of writing, existing Business and Enterprise customers receive higher promotional allowances through August 2026. Validate the current allowance before publishing or making financial decisions. Included experiences Code completions and next edit suggestions remain included on paid plans and do not consume AI credits. Metered experiences AI-powered features such as Copilot Chat, Copilot CLI, Copilot cloud agent, Copilot Spaces, Spark, and supported third-party coding agents consume AI credits. Additional consumption Some agentic experiences, including Copilot code review and cloud agent scenarios, can also consume GitHub Actions minutes in addition to AI credits. Important: Pricing, allowances, supported models, and product behavior can change. The official GitHub documentation and the customer’s commercial agreement remain the source of truth. Why optimization is more than cost reduction Token consumption is only the visible part of the problem. A poorly scoped task, unnecessary context, or the wrong model can cause an agent to misunderstand the request, make excessive changes, or require repeated attempts. In that situation, reducing the price of an individual request does not solve the underlying quality problem. A better optimization strategy starts with agent quality. The right model, clear instructions, focused context, good repository guidance, and deterministic validation can help Copilot complete work in fewer attempts. Better outcomes and lower consumption frequently reinforce each other. Introducing Solution Optimization for GitHub Copilot The Solution Optimization for GitHub Copilot engagement provides customers with an opportunity to work with a Microsoft Cloud Solution Architect to review how GitHub Copilot is being adopted, consumed, governed, and measured. The final scope should be agreed with the Microsoft account team and may vary according to the customer’s licensing model, environment, maturity, and priorities. A typical engagement can focus on the following areas: Usage visibility: Establish a current-state view of adoption, AI credit consumption, model activity, license allocation, and the users or workflows driving demand. Billing readiness: Review exported usage data, compare scenarios, and identify where the move to usage-based billing changes planning assumptions. Cost guardrails: Design user-level, cost-center, organization, and enterprise budget controls that protect the shared pool without unnecessarily blocking productive users. Agent quality and token optimization: Identify improvements to model selection, prompt structure, context management, reasoning levels, repository instructions, and validation steps. Operating model: Define ownership, review cadence, escalation paths, reporting responsibilities, and a prioritized backlog of recommended actions. Potential customer outcomes Depending on the agreed scope, the engagement can help the customer develop: A baseline of GitHub Copilot adoption, AI credit consumption, and cost drivers. A view of heavy users, underused licenses, high-consumption models, and agentic workflows that need closer review. A budget and guardrail design that balances shared-pool flexibility with predictable financial control. Practical recommendations for improving agent quality and reducing avoidable retries or context overhead. A prioritized optimization plan with owners, next actions, and measurable follow-up points. A practical engagement approach Discover: Review the customer’s goals, GitHub billing entity, Copilot plans, license assignment model, existing policies, cost centers, and available usage data. Analyze: Use native GitHub reporting and approved accelerators to examine adoption, AI credit usage, model activity, user patterns, and potential cost drivers. Optimize: Map the right model and reasoning level to each task, improve prompts and context, reduce unnecessary tool or repository context, preserve reusable cache, and plan before executing complex changes. Govern: Define user-level budgets, power-user overrides, cost-center or organization controls, enterprise spending limits, alerts, and ownership responsibilities. Measure: Document the baseline, agree on key indicators, and establish a regular review cycle to measure adoption, value, quality, and consumption over time. Tools and accelerators GitHub AI usage, billing exports, and budget controls GitHub’s native AI usage pages and billing reports should be the starting point for understanding consumption. They provide the information required to identify model usage, users, features, and cost patterns. Native budget controls can then be applied at the appropriate user, cost-center, organization, or enterprise scope. GitHub AI usage dashboard, exported usage report, and budget controls GitHub Copilot Billing Preview The GitHub Copilot Billing Preview is an open-source web application for analyzing Copilot billing CSV reports, comparing request-based and usage-based billing signals, and exploring usage and cost trends by user, organization, model, product, and cost center. CSV processing occurs locally in the browser. The application is a preview and planning tool, not the billing source of record. GitHub Copilot Billing Preview showing usage and cost trends Copilot Insights dashboard The community-developed Copilot Insights dashboard provides centralized views of adoption, license allocation, AI credit consumption, model activity, productivity indicators, and team-level reporting. It can complement native GitHub data when a customer needs richer visualization or executive reporting. Customers should review the project’s security, deployment, support, and governance model before production use. Copilot Insights adoption, license, and AI credit views Agent quality and token optimization principles GitHub’s guidance emphasizes that the most sustainable way to reduce AI credit consumption is to improve the quality and efficiency of each interaction. The following principles provide a useful starting point: Choose the right model for the task. Reserve powerful reasoning models for complex architecture, debugging, and design work. Use mid-tier or lighter models for well-scoped implementation, documentation, formatting, and routine refactoring. Provide clear guidance. State the goal, constraints, expected output, relevant files, and validation criteria. Ambiguous prompts often lead to exploration and rework. Keep context lean. Supply the information needed for the task and avoid loading unrelated repositories, files, tools, or instructions into the context window. Preserve reusable context. Stable instructions and cached context can reduce repeated processing, provided they remain relevant and accurate. Research and plan before implementation. For complex work, separate discovery and planning from execution so the agent does not repeatedly rediscover the same information. Add deterministic guardrails. Tests, linting, build validation, explicit stop conditions, and session limits help prevent long-running or low-quality loops. Measure value, not only consumption. AI credit data should be considered together with adoption, developer experience, quality, delivery outcomes, and business impact. Overview video The on-demand session GitHub Copilot - Token Optimization [AMER/EMEA] explains the relationship between token usage and agent quality. The session covers how large language models, agent harnesses, context windows, and available controls influence agent behavior, quality, consumption, and cost. https://www.youtube.com/live/LeALSSsbzHU?si=4RgxflItkQFAs9Qk Helpful inputs before the engagement The following inputs can help the Microsoft team and customer make the best use of the engagement: A GitHub enterprise or organization owner, billing manager, and relevant engineering or platform stakeholders. Current Copilot plan and license counts, including the billing entity and cost-center structure. A representative GitHub AI usage or billing export, handled according to the customer’s data policies. Existing budgets, spending policies, model policies, and reporting processes. Examples of high-volume agent sessions, code review workflows, or teams reporting unexpected consumption. The business outcomes the customer wants to improve, such as adoption, developer experience, delivery speed, quality, or cost predictability. Conclusion GitHub Copilot usage-based billing changes the conversation from license assignment alone to the broader discipline of operating AI-assisted software development. Customers need visibility into how AI credits are consumed, controls that prevent unexpected spend, and engineering practices that help agents complete work accurately and efficiently. The Solution Optimization for GitHub Copilot engagement can help customers connect usage data to practical decisions, improve agent quality, establish appropriate financial guardrails, and create a repeatable approach for measuring and optimizing GitHub Copilot over time. How do I book this engagement? Microsoft Unified Support customers can contact their Customer Success Account Manager (CSAM) or Microsoft account team and ask about Solution Optimization for GitHub Copilot. The Microsoft team can confirm availability, eligibility, scope, prerequisites, and scheduling for the customer’s environment. Resources GitHub Copilot usage-based billing for organizations and enterprises Getting started with GitHub Copilot budget controls Optimizing AI usage to maximize efficiency and reduce cost Models and pricing for GitHub Copilot GitHub Copilot Billing Preview Copilot Insights dashboard GitHub Copilot - Token Optimization [AMER/EMEA] Disclaimer Pricing, plan entitlements, AI credit allowances, supported models, and product behavior are subject to change. Always verify current information in the official GitHub documentation and the customer’s commercial agreement before making purchasing, budgeting, or technical decisions. The sample applications, dashboards, and scripts referenced in this article are provided AS IS without warranty of any kind and may not be supported under a Microsoft or GitHub standard support program unless explicitly stated. Customers are responsible for reviewing security, privacy, compliance, deployment, and operational requirements before using community or open-source solutions in production. This blog post was drafted with the assistance of generative AI and should be reviewed and approved by the author and relevant Microsoft stakeholders before publication.Creating Autonomous Teams Agents Using OpenClaw, MCP, and Azure Container Apps
The one shift that changes everything For two years, "AI coding" meant autocomplete. A suggestion appears in your editor, you hit tab, you move on. The agent only existed while you were actively typing. That is no longer the only model. A new category of tools runs asynchronously and autonomously: you message the agent from a chat window — Teams, Slack, Telegram — describe what you want, and walk away. The agent plans, writes code, runs tests, deploys, and hands you back a result. Some of them never sleep: they hold a persistent memory, load their own skills, and act on a schedule without being prompted. This is the world of OpenClaw, Hermes Agent, and the other long-running autonomous agents that exploded across developer culture in 2026. OpenClaw alone crossed 377,000 GitHub stars and millions of active users, becoming — for a while — the most-starred project on GitHub. You install it with one line, connect a channel, and start delegating from your phone. The workflow moves from pair programming to delegation and review. The interactive copilot asks, "What should I write next?" The autonomous agent asks, "What do you need done?" And that reframing is exactly why three questions now keep architects awake: Is it safe? You are handing a self-driving process the ability to run shell commands, touch files, and call APIs. One community report memorably described these agents as a teammate in your group chat who happens to have root access to your codebase. That is not a compliment — it is a threat model. Can it fit into real multi-agent work? A single agent is a demo. Production is a fleet — specialists that hand off to each other with gates in between. Is it flexible and controllable? Autonomy is thrilling right up until the agent packages last week's stale files into this week's deliverable, or loops forever on a failing test. This post answers all three — not with hand-waving, but with a working reference implementation you can clone today: CustomCodingAgentApp in the Multi-AI-Agents-Cloud-Native repo, an "Agentic Prototype Factory" that turns a plain-language idea into a tested, live-on-Azure prototype without leaving the chat window. A product manager types "Build a BBC-style World Cup feature page" in Microsoft Teams. Minutes later they get back a running HTTPS URL and a downloadable source ZIP. Under the hood, five specialized OpenClaw agents powered by Microsoft Foundry gpt-5.5 collaborate in a shared sandbox, run real pytest/Jest suites, and ship the result to Azure Container Apps — all orchestrated behind a Model Context Protocol (MCP) service so any MCP client (GitHub Copilot, Claude, the Teams bot) can drive it. We'll build up to that architecture in the order you should learn it. Part 1 — Long-running autonomous agents, and their two hard problems What actually makes them different A traditional chatbot is text in, text out. It waits for you. An autonomous agent inverts that: Property Traditional chatbot Long-running autonomous agent Execution Responds to a prompt Acts proactively (a "heartbeat" wakes it on a schedule) Scope Words Files, shell, browser, APIs — the real machine Memory This session only Persistent across sessions Interface A web box Any chat channel + the terminal Autonomy None Plans and takes multi-step action on its own Architecturally, OpenClaw is not a library you import — it's a runtime. A single long-running process (the Gateway) bridges your messaging channels to an LLM backend, keeps sessions alive, queues work in ordered lanes, and drives the classic agent loop: call the model → execute the tool calls it asks for → feed results back → repeat until done. There is no rigid step-planner; the model itself steers. That is what makes it feel magical — and what makes it hard to contain. That containment problem has two faces. Hard problem #1 — Security The same properties that make an autonomous agent useful make it dangerous. Full system access + proactive execution + a 32,000-server tool ecosystem is a large, self-driving attack surface. OpenClaw's own short history is the cautionary tale: a critical one-click remote-code-execution CVE early in its life, hundreds of malicious community "skills" discovered on its marketplace, and tens of thousands of gateways found exposed on the open internet. None of this means "don't use autonomous agents." It means: never run one with ambient credentials on a machine you care about. The agent belongs in a box with a hard wall around it. Hard problem #2 — Persistence and continuity Real agent work is long. Refactoring a codebase, researching across dozens of pages, building-testing-deploying an app — these take minutes to hours, far past a single request/response. So the runtime needs durable sessions, a place to keep state, and a workspace that survives across steps. But a persistent workspace that is reused creates its own hazard: state leakage. Files from yesterday's task can contaminate — or get shipped inside — today's result. Continuity and cleanliness pull in opposite directions, and you have to engineer the tension out. One agent is a demo; production is a fleet A single monolithic agent asked to "gather requirements, write the code, test it, deploy it, and package it" will do all four mediocrely and blur the boundaries between them. The production pattern is orchestrator-worker: specialized agents, each with one job, handing off to the next through explicit gates. OpenClaw supports exactly this — it can spawn sub-agents and even dispatch external coding harnesses, acting as a meta-orchestrator rather than a single model. The open question is never whether to go multi-agent; it's where the seams and the guardrails go. The answer to "is it safe?": put the agent in a microVM If the agent needs root to be useful, then give it root — inside a disposable microVM, not on your host. In 2026 there are several credible ways to do this: Kata Containers on AKS — each pod gets its own lightweight VM boundary and guest kernel. Hyperlight Wasm — per-call, snapshot-restored Wasm microVMs for running LLM-generated code. Azure Container Apps dynamic sessions — prewarmed, Hyper-V-isolated sandboxes that start in milliseconds, scale to thousands, and are purpose-built for "secure execution of custom code" and "running LLM-generated scripts." That last one — the ACA sandbox — is the sweet spot for a chat-driven agent factory: strong isolation without you operating a Kubernetes cluster, and an exec API to run commands inside the box. It's what the reference implementation uses. Part 2 — Putting OpenClaw into the ACA sandbox Here is where the repo stops being a diagram and becomes running code. The Agentic Prototype Factory decomposes the "idea → live app" job into five specialized OpenClaw agents that run in sequence, all inside the sandbox: requirements → coding → testing → deployment → save Each is addressable as its own model target on the OpenClaw gateway's OpenAI-compatible API: model value Routes to openclaw / openclaw/default Default agent openclaw/requirements-agent Requirement Agent openclaw/coding-agent Coding Agent openclaw/testing-agent Testing Agent openclaw/deployment-agent Deployment Agent openclaw/save-agent Save & download Agent Control, not vibes: review gates with feedback loops Autonomy without gates is how you get an agent that confidently deploys a broken app. The orchestrator wires the five agents into a graph with hard, bounded gates: Every knob is explicit and lives in server.py: _MAX_TEST_ROUNDS = 3, _MAX_DEPLOY_REVIEW = 2, _DEPLOY_POLL_ATTEMPTS = 12, _DEPLOY_POLL_DELAY_S = 20. The Testing Agent must end each turn with a literal TESTS_PASSED / TESTS_FAILED verdict; the orchestrator won't declare success until it HTTP-checks the deployed URL and inspects the response body — because a ResourceNotFound can happily return an HTTP 200. That is what "flexible and controllable" looks like in practice: the LLM drives creatively inside a deterministic state machine. The deterministic pre-run wipe (solving state leakage) Because the sandbox is reused across runs (fast, cheap), the orchestrator does something disciplined before every run: it wipes all lingering agent workspaces. Stale files from a previous task can never leak into — or be packaged as — the new result. This is the engineered answer to Hard Problem #2. Working with the sandbox's limits, not against them The ACA sandbox exec API is hard-capped at ~120 seconds — shorter than a cold az acr build plus az containerapp create. A naive agent would time out and report failure. The clever bit: those commands finish server-side on Azure even after the client exec disconnects. So deployment is split in two: deploy-build <dir> <app> — installs the deploy helpers, writes a tight .dockerignore, and kicks off the ACR build tagged <app>:latest. If the client drops at ~120s, the image still lands in ACR. deploy-finish <app> — idempotent, polled up to 12×. It reports STILL_BUILDING until the image exists, then fires a --no-wait containerapp create, and finally returns DEPLOYED_URL=https://<fqdn>. This is the single most important lesson of the whole sample: an autonomous agent doesn't need a longer timeout — it needs to understand the durability semantics of the platform it runs on. Part 3 — MCP, and why its security is the whole ballgame The five-agent workflow is powerful, but it would be a silo if the only way to reach it were a bespoke API. Instead, the repo wraps the entire orchestration as a Model Context Protocol (MCP) service (acamcp_node) exposed over streamable HTTP at /mcp, with a tiny, legible tool surface: MCP tool What it does generate_prototype Run the full five-agent workflow end to end run_agent Invoke a single named agent check_gateway_health Liveness / readiness of the OpenClaw gateway The payoff is enormous: any MCP client can now drive the factory — GitHub Copilot, Claude, or the Teams bot we're about to meet. One protocol, many front-ends. But MCP is not just an integration convenience — it's a control plane, and every MCP tool is a privileged capability. In an ecosystem with 32,000+ community servers, "just add an MCP server" is a supply-chain decision. A tool call is code execution by another name. So the security posture has to be deliberate. Here is how the reference implementation hardens it — and the principles are portable to any MCP deployment: Auth in front of the protocol. The MCP ingress sits behind basic auth (MCP_BASIC_AUTH_PASSWORD); the gateway itself requires the gateway token as a bearer credential (Authorization: Bearer <token>). No anonymous tool calls. A tiny, named allowlist — not a blank check. The gateway routes only to six explicit model targets. There is no "run arbitrary agent" escape hatch; the routing table is the allowlist. No secrets in the workload. There are no model API keys anywhere in the running containers — model access is brokered entirely through Entra ID managed identities. The gateway token is stored as a Kubernetes secret and never baked into an image. Private by default. The gateway's OpenAI-compatible endpoint is operator-level access — it stays on private ingress, with TLS and authentication added before anything is ever exposed publicly. Least privilege at the identity layer. The gateway is granted exactly the Foundry roles it needs (Cognitive Services User / Cognitive Services OpenAI User) on the Foundry resource — nothing more. The takeaway for MCP is the same as for the agent itself: treat the protocol as a doorway, and put a guard on the door. Authentication, an explicit allowlist, private ingress, and brokered identity turn MCP from an open blast radius into a governed control plane. Part 4 — The complete solution: Teams + MCP on ACA + OpenClaw on the ACA sandbox Now assemble the three deployable components into one loop: The request lifecycle, end to end A PM sends one sentence in Teams. The teamsbot_app bot — acting as an MCP client via mcpClient.ts — opens an MCP handshake and calls generate_prototype. The MCP service on ACA (acamcp_node) runs the orchestrator: pre-run wipe, then requirements → coding → testing. The OpenClaw gateway in the ACA sandbox (acasbxapp_node) executes each agent, talking to Foundry gpt-5.5 through a managed identity — no keys in the box. Real pytest + Jest suites run inside the sandbox. Fail → loop back (bounded). Pass → deploy. Deployment uses the build + poll split to survive the ~120s exec cap; the app lands in Azure Container Apps and is health-checked body-aware at its live URL. The Save Agent produces an authenticated ZIP download URL. The bot streams each agent's progress back into the Teams thread and returns the running HTTPS URL + source ZIP — optionally auto-opening the project in VS Code Insiders. How the architecture answers the three questions The question How this solution answers it Is it safe? The autonomous agent runs in a Hyper-V-isolated ACA sandbox, not on anyone's laptop. No model keys in the workload — Entra ID managed identity brokers Foundry. MCP behind basic auth; gateway behind a bearer token on private ingress; token as a secret, never in an image. A deterministic pre-run wipe removes cross-run leakage. Does it fit multi-agent work? It is a multi-agent system — five specialist OpenClaw agents with A2A hand-offs and review gates — and because it's exposed via MCP, any client (Copilot, Claude, Teams) can orchestrate it. Is it flexible and controllable? Creativity lives inside a deterministic state machine: explicit TESTS_PASSED/FAILED verdicts, bounded retry loops (_MAX_TEST_ROUNDS, _MAX_DEPLOY_REVIEW), body-aware health checks, and a human approving in the Teams thread. Deploy it yourself The repo ships scripts for all three tiers (the gateway uses the platform's managed identity to reach Foundry — no key handling, no image rebuild): # 1) OpenClaw gateway + the 5 agents (acasbxapp_node) cd acasbxapp_node cp .env.example .env # gateway token, Foundry endpoint, sandbox ids ./scripts/build-openclaw-image.sh # build + push the OpenClaw image to ACR ./scripts/deploy-aks-gateway.sh # grant Foundry roles + deploy # 2) MCP service (acamcp_node) cd ../acamcp_node cp .env.example .env # ACR + cluster; gateway token read from ../acasbxapp_node/.env ./scripts/build-images.sh # build + push the MCP image ./scripts/deploy-aks.sh # secret + manifests to the openclaw namespace ./scripts/smoke-check.sh # verify the MCP handshake # 3) Teams bot (teamsbot_app) — Node.js/TypeScript MCP client cd ../teamsbot_app # configure + run per the folder README, then sideload the Teams app package The reference implementation targets Azure (ACA + AKS) — the OpenClaw gateway and MCP service run as containers, and the code-execution sandbox uses the ACA dynamic-sessions exec API. Keep the gateway on private ingress and add TLS before any public exposure. Final thought Strip away the World Cup demo and a reusable pattern remains — a blueprint for running any long-running autonomous agent in the enterprise: A message-driven agent (OpenClaw / Hermes) + a microVM sandbox (Azure Container Apps dynamic sessions) + an MCP control plane with auth + enterprise identity (Entra ID managed identity) + a human surface (Microsoft Teams). The autonomy that made these agents go viral is the same autonomy that makes security teams nervous. You don't resolve that tension by slowing the agent down — you resolve it by giving it a box with a hard wall, a control plane with a guard on the door, an identity instead of a secret, and a human in the loop. Do that, and "your PM types a sentence, Azure ships an app" stops being a scary demo and becomes something you can actually put in production. Clone it, break it, harden it further: kinfey/Multi-AI-Agents-Cloud-Native → code/CustomCodingAgentApp The chat window is the new terminal. Let's make it a safe one.Token Economics: The New FinOps for Agentic AI
In AI applications, tokens are now cost — and token economics deserves architectural attention For a long time, AI application design started with model capability: Can the model write code? Can it reason? Can it use tools? Can it handle long context? Those questions still matter, but in the age of agentic applications, they are no longer sufficient. The more important production question is this: How many tokens does the architecture burn to complete one useful task? A classic chat application often maps one user turn to one model call. An agentic system is different. One user goal can trigger planning, retrieval, tool selection, tool execution, result interpretation, reflection, repair, and summarization. The user sees one instruction; the system may execute dozens of model calls behind the scenes. Tokens are no longer just a measure of text length. They become a measure of system design, runtime behavior, developer workflow, and business cost. GitHub Copilot’s 2026 move to usage-based billing through GitHub AI Credits captures the industry shift clearly. Usage is now aligned with token consumption, including input, output, and cached tokens. That matters because Copilot has evolved from an in-editor assistant into an agentic platform that can handle long, multi-step coding sessions across repositories. In that world, a tiny prompt and a multi-hour autonomous coding workflow should not be treated as the same economic unit. Token economics is therefore not about telling developers to “write shorter prompts.” It is about designing systems where: useful context is preserved, while noise is removed; repeated context is cached or deduplicated; simple tasks do not pay for frontier models; short-term state is managed structurally instead of copied repeatedly; every model call is metered, comparable, and governed. In short: token economics is the practice of making agentic AI economically sustainable. Scenario thinking: GitHub Copilot billing, Copilot SDK, GPT-5.5, Anthropic, and MAI-Code Model The new GitHub Copilot billing model provides a useful framing for developers. Copilot is no longer only autocomplete. It is becoming a programmable agentic platform. It can use models, call tools, work across files, stream responses, and participate in long-running coding workflows. With the GitHub Copilot SDK, developers can embed that agentic runtime into their own applications, services, and developer tools. That is powerful, but it also changes the cost model. Once an agent loop becomes programmable, token cost also needs to become programmable. If a system can plan, call tools, edit files, retry, repair, and summarize, it also needs to meter, route, cache, compress, and evaluate. EvalAgentic gives this idea a concrete playground. The project groups models into cost and capability tiers: Tier Example models Example price / 1K tokens Typical use LARGE claude-opus-4.8, gpt-5.5 $0.030 Agents, code generation, multi-step reasoning MID gpt-5.4-mini $0.012 Dialogue, summarization, extraction TINY gpt-5-mini $0.001 Classification, keyword matching, rule-like tasks This tiering lets us reason about real scenarios: GPT-5.5-class models are valuable for hard reasoning and engineering workflows, but they should not be the default for every step. Using a frontier model for simple classification is like hiring a principal architect to label folders. Anthropic high-capability models can be excellent for complex reasoning and coding, but they benefit from routing discipline. Requirements analysis, test interpretation, deployment explanation, and code generation may not need the same model tier. MAI-Code Model-style coding models should be treated as specialized capability layers. Their value is not just “better code generation”; it is deciding when code-specialized intelligence should be invoked in a larger agent pipeline. The real question is not “Which model is the best?” It is: Which model is the most economical and reliable for this step of this workflow? Four engineering techniques for saving tokens Context Compression: turn long text into executable structure Implementation principle Context Compression converts long natural-language context into the structured information an agent actually needs. Business documents are often verbose: resumes, contracts, product manuals, requirements, and support logs contain narrative text, boilerplate, repeated explanations, and low-value context. The next agent step may only need a few fields. EvalAgentic demonstrates this with a long resume-like input that is compressed into a compact JSON object. Instead of injecting the full original text into every prompt, the system extracts key fields and dynamically injects only the data required by the current task. A practical compression pipeline includes: Redundancy detection — identify long-tail text, repeated descriptions, stale history, and low-value context. Structured extraction — use Copilot or a mid-tier model to transform prose into JSON, tables, or typed schemas. Dynamic injection — inject only the fields needed for the next step. Recoverable references — preserve source pointers so compressed context remains auditable. How to evaluate Prompt token reduction before and after compression. Answer quality and task success rate. Schema fidelity and missing-field rate. Latency improvement. Cost per successful task. Compression is not summarization. Summaries are designed for humans. Structured compression is designed for agents. Prompt Deduplication / Cache: stop paying twice for the same context Implementation principle Many agent systems waste tokens because they repeatedly send the same context. The same resume, contract, repository README, user profile, API documentation, or business rule can be copied across turns and agents. Prompt Deduplication / Cache applies a simple principle: if context has already been processed, do not pay to process it again unless it has changed. A concrete design includes: compute a hash or semantic key for source context; reuse extracted structured results when content is identical or equivalent; apply a TTL for repeated entities, such as the 24-hour cache pattern shown in EvalAgentic; organize stable prompt prefixes to benefit from provider-level prompt caching where available; store shared context in an artifact store or memory layer so multiple agents do not copy the same blob. How to evaluate Cache hit rate. Cached token ratio. Duplicate prompt rate. Cost delta before and after caching. Correctness under cache, especially stale-cache failures. Caching is not “save everything forever.” Good caching knows when to reuse and when to invalidate. On-Demand Model Routing: let task complexity decide model tier Implementation principle On-Demand Model Routing routes each request to the cheapest model that can complete the task reliably. The entry point can use a rule tree, a lightweight classifier, or a hybrid complexity score. EvalAgentic’s routing tree is intentionally easy to explain: INCOMING REQUEST └─ Prompt < 500 tokens? ── YES ─→ TINY: classify / extract └─ NO ──→ multi-step reasoning? ├─ NO ─→ MID: dialogue / summary └─ YES ─→ LARGE: agent / code The engineering logic is straightforward: simple classification and keyword matching go to TINY; summarization and structured conversion go to MID; multi-step reasoning, coding, cross-file changes, and orchestration go to LARGE; code-specialized models such as MAI-Code Model can be placed in the coding phase rather than used across the whole pipeline. How to evaluate Routing accuracy. Cost per route. Quality regression by tier. Escalation rate from small models to larger models. End-to-end success rate. Routing does not mean “always use the smallest model.” It means frontier intelligence is reserved for the steps where it actually changes the outcome. Short-term Memory: preserve state instead of replaying history Implementation principle Short-term Memory controls context growth across multi-turn and multi-agent workflows. Without it, agents often replay the full conversation history, full tool outputs, and full intermediate reasoning on every turn. The context grows; quality may not improve; the bill definitely does. A better design stores state structurally: user goal; current plan; tool outputs and references; failure reasons; next actions; handoff artifacts between agents. In a multi-agent coding pipeline, the Requirements Agent should hand off a structured spec. The Coding Agent should read that spec, not the entire prior conversation. The Testing Agent should consume testable artifacts, not every word produced by the Coding Agent. How to evaluate Context growth curve across turns. Memory retrieval precision. Rework rate caused by missing state. Recovery quality after failed steps. Average input tokens per turn. Short-term memory is not about remembering everything. It is about remembering the next useful thing. EvalAgentic as a concrete evaluation example EvalAgentic is effective as an evangelism project because it turns token economics into an observable before/after system. The architecture has five layers: Frontend — frontend/index.html provides Tabs A / B / C, live SSE logs, and before/after charts. API — backend/server.py exposes FastAPI routes and Server-Sent Events streaming. Orchestration — eval.py handles A/B evaluation; coding_agents.py handles the multi-agent coding scenario. Core — compressor.py, router.py, gh_models.py, and token_meter.py implement compression, routing, Copilot SDK calls, and token metering. Providers — GitHub Copilot SDK and Microsoft Agent Framework provide model access and agent orchestration. Tab A: Compression comparison Tab A compares long-form context before and after structured compression. The key message is that token saving does not come from writing a clever sentence. It comes from converting verbose context into a structured artifact that downstream agents can consume efficiently. Tab B: On-demand model routing Tab B demonstrates that cost is not only about raw token count. If a system routes simple tasks to cheaper tiers and reserves expensive models for complex reasoning, total cost can fall even if some token counts increase. This is a subtle but important point: token economics is not token starvation; it is model portfolio optimization. Tab C: Coding scenario — multi-agent with Agent Framework Tab C is the most persuasive demo. The same deliverable — a Taobao-like goods-list site with HTML + JavaScript frontend, Flask backend, and Docker deployment — is produced twice by a four-agent pipeline: Requirements Agent; Coding Agent; Testing Agent; Deployment Agent. The before pipeline uses no compression and sends every agent to GPT-5.5 / LARGE. The after pipeline injects a compressed JSON spec and uses on-demand routing: requirements can use MID, coding can use LARGE, testing can use MID, and deployment can use TINY. This mirrors real enterprise development. Architecture and complex code generation may deserve frontier models. Test interpretation, deployment packaging, and simple validation often do not. Summary and refinement based on the project diagrams The EvalAgentic README describes three important visuals: the architecture flow, the routing tree, and the token-meter design. Together, they form a governance loop: User Scenario ↓ Context Compression ↓ Prompt Deduplication / Cache ↓ On-Demand Model Routing ↓ Short-term Memory ↓ Token Metering & Budget Actions ↓ Before / After Evaluation Optimize the path, not only the prompt Many teams start token optimization by editing prompt wording. That helps, but the largest waste usually lives in the execution path: how many calls are made, how much context is repeated, how often tools retry, and whether every step uses the same expensive model. EvalAgentic makes the path visible through A/B comparisons. Token Meter is the control plane of cost governance EvalAgentic’s token_meter.py uses a non-invasive interceptor pattern: INTERCEPTOR (@token_meter) ↓ COUNTER CORE: accounting / budget threshold / trigger ↓ ACTION HUB: throttle (>80% budget) / rollback (>budget) This is the right architectural instinct. Production systems need thresholds, throttling, rollback, and traceability. Without those controls, one retry loop can quietly turn a small user request into a budget incident. Cost metrics must be evaluated with quality metrics A system that cuts cost by 80% but drops success rate by 50% is not optimized. It is broken more cheaply. The evaluation matrix should combine cost, quality, latency, and reliability: Dimension Metric Why it matters Cost Cost per successful task Measures the real unit economics Token Input / output / cached tokens Identifies compression and cache opportunities Quality Pass rate / regression rate Ensures cheaper tiers do not break outcomes Efficiency Latency / retry count Prevents cheap models from causing expensive retries Governance Budget breach / rollback count Validates runtime control Narrative A simple three-line narrative works well for demos: Token is no longer a technical detail. It is the bill of your architecture. EvalAgentic shows the same scenario before and after cost-aware design. The goal is not to make models cheaper; the goal is to make agent systems economically governable. For a developer audience, the sharper version is: A good agent does not use the biggest model everywhere. It uses the right intelligence at the right step, with the right context, under the right budget. Practical recommendations for real projects Establish a token baseline first. Measure input, output, retries, tool calls, and cost per scenario before optimizing. Make compression a component, not a prompt habit. Define schemas, cache policies, and fallback behavior. Introduce a model routing matrix. Route by task type, complexity, risk, latency, and cost. Define handoff contracts between agents. Pass structured artifacts, not endless conversation history. Evaluate every optimization with A/B tests. Compare cost, quality, latency, and stability. Add budget actions. Throttle at a threshold, rollback on breach, and add circuit breakers for failed retries. Closing: token economics is the second curve of agent engineering The first phase of AI application development was about calling models. The second phase was about putting models into products. The next phase of agentic AI is about running those systems reliably, affordably, and governably. EvalAgentic matters because it turns Context Compression, Prompt Deduplication / Cache, On-Demand Model Routing, and Short-term Memory into something developers can run, compare, and explain. It moves token economics from opinion to instrumentation. Future AI applications will not only ask: How smart is this agent? They will ask: How many tokens does it spend per completed task? Which model did it use? Did it hit cache? Did retries run away? Did the system reserve frontier intelligence for the steps that deserved it? References kinfey/EvalAgentic GitHub Copilot is moving to usage-based billing Updates to GitHub Copilot billing and plans Copilot SDK - GitHub DocsGitHub Copilot App - Canvas Is Not a UI Builder
What if your development environment didn't just help you write code, but helped you observe, steer, and evolve a living system while it runs? That's the shift GitHub Copilot App Canvas represents. Canvas redefines how developers interact with agent-driven software: not by building traditional user interfaces, but by creating interactive environments where humans and AI co-create, test, and iterate in real time. This post walks through a real Canvas extension we built, a Multi-Agent Dev Canvas that demonstrates how Canvas becomes a runtime observability and control plane for an agent-driven system. We'll cover why Canvas exists, how it differs from traditional UI development, and how you can use it to accelerate the design-test-evolve loop for any multi-agent application. The Misconception: "Canvas Is for Building UIs" The first instinct many developers have when they see Canvas is to treat it like a UI framework, a place to build dashboards, boards, or user-facing applications. That's not what Canvas is for. Here's the distinction that matters: Traditional UIs are for using software. They serve end-users who interact with a finished product. Canvas is for shaping software while it runs. It serves developers and AI agents who are actively building, testing, and evolving a system. Canvas solves problems your final UI should never try to solve in a visible way. It's the observability layer, the control plane, the validation surface — all the things you need during development that disappear before production. Think of it this way: you wouldn't ship your debugger to users, but you absolutely need it while building. What We Built: A Multi-Agent Dev Canvas To demonstrate Canvas as a development runtime, we built a Multi-Agent Dev Canvas, a standalone GitHub Copilot Canvas extension (this repo, copilot-canvas-runtime) that treats an entire multi-agent system as a living, observable environment. The same pattern applies to any agent-driven system built on services such as Microsoft Foundry. The Multi-Agent Dev Canvas: a runtime observability and control plane where developers and AI agents collaborate to design, test, and evolve an agent-driven system in real time. The canvas provides four integrated panels: System View: See Your Agents Working Five specialised agents are displayed as live cards with real-time status indicators. Each card shows the agent's name, responsibility, current status (idle, running, done, or error), task count, and last action taken. When an agent is active, its card pulses blue. When it fails, it glows red. You see the system breathe. decompose_system — Breaks requirements into agent tasks execute_workflow — Coordinates agents to perform tasks validate_output — Runs evaluation tests and returns structured results update_system_design — Modifies architecture based on feedback track_state — Persists and updates system state over time Task Flows: Watch Work Move Through the Pipeline Below the agents, a flow graph visualises how tasks route between agents. When you decompose a system requirement like "Build an AI-powered code review agent," the canvas shows five components (pr-ingestion, code-analysis, feedback-generator, learning-loop, notification-service) flowing from the decomposer to the executor and designer agents. Each flow carries a status badge, pending, pass, or fail. Validation Panel: Continuous Testing, Not Afterthought Testing The validation panel displays structured test results with pass/fail badges and reasoning. When you run validation, each test case evaluates against specific criteria: ✅ "PR ingestion handles large diffs" — Meets criteria: process diffs over 5,000 lines without timeout ❌ "Feedback is actionable" — Failed: does not satisfy criteria that each suggestion includes a code fix ✅ "Learning loop converges" — Meets criteria: accept rate improves over 10 iterations ✅ "Notifications are non-blocking" — Meets criteria: delivery latency under 500ms This isn't a test runner you invoke separately, it's a validation surface embedded in the development loop. You see failures the moment they happen, in context, alongside the agents and flows that produced them. Live State Timeline: Every Mutation, Visible The right panel tracks every state change with timestamps. Decomposition events, workflow executions, validation runs, failure injections — all appear chronologically. This is the system's memory, visible to both the human developer and the AI agents working alongside them. Canvas as a Runtime: The Key Capabilities What makes Canvas a runtime rather than a display layer is that the agent can act through it. The canvas exposes seven agent-callable actions: Action What It Does decompose_system Accept requirements and components, generate task flows, update the system design execute_workflow Run pending tasks through the agent pipeline, produce artifacts validate_output Evaluate test cases against criteria, return structured pass/fail with reasoning update_system_design Modify the architecture description, constraints, or component list live track_state Read the full system state — agents, flows, validations, history, artifacts inject_failure Force an agent into an error state to test system adaptation pause_resume Toggle execution on and off The human developer can click Decompose, Execute, or Validate directly in the canvas. The AI agent can invoke the same actions programmatically. Both parties operate on the same surface, the same state, the same system, that's what makes Canvas collaborative in a way traditional tooling is not. Why This Matters: Canvas vs. Figma vs. Traditional UIs It helps to position Canvas against tools developers already know: Figma is Human-to-Human collaboration on design. Multiple people interact with the same visual surface, but nothing executes. It's a design tool. Traditional UIs are Human-to-System. Users interact with finished software through a polished interface. Canvas is Human-to-AI-to-System. It's a shared space where things actually execute. The developer steers, the AI acts, and the system evolves, all visible, all in real time. Canvas is collaborative in the Figma sense — it's a shared space, it's visual, multiple participants interact with the same surface. But unlike Figma, the participants include AI agents, and the surface isn't a mockup — it's a live system. How the Extension Works: Under the Hood A Canvas extension is a standard GitHub Copilot CLI extension, a single extension.mjs file that speaks JSON-RPC over stdio. The key components: 1. State Management Each canvas instance maintains its own system state: agents, task flows, validations, a state history timeline, artifacts, and the current system design. State is held in-memory per instance and pushed to the iframe via Server-Sent Events whenever it changes. function createInitialState() { return { agents: [ { id: "decomposer", name: "decompose_system", status: "idle", responsibility: "Break requirements into agent tasks" }, { id: "executor", name: "execute_workflow", status: "idle", responsibility: "Coordinate agents to perform tasks" }, // ... three more agents ], taskFlows: [], validations: [], stateHistory: [], artifacts: [], systemDesign: { description: "", constraints: [], components: [] }, execution: { paused: false, stepCount: 0 }, }; } 2. Real-Time Updates via Server-Sent Events The canvas runs a loopback HTTP server per instance. The iframe connects to an /events endpoint and receives state updates as they happen — no polling, no websocket complexity. if (req.url === "/events") { res.writeHead(200, { "Content-Type": "text/event-stream", "Cache-Control": "no-cache" }); clients.add(res); // Push current state immediately on connect res.write(`data: ${JSON.stringify(getState(instanceId))}\n\n`); } 3. Dual Interaction Model Every action is available through two paths. The human clicks a button in the iframe, which POSTs to the local server. The AI agent calls invoke_canvas_action through the SDK. Both paths mutate the same state and trigger the same SSE broadcast. Neither is privileged over the other. 4. Canvas Declaration The canvas registers with the Copilot SDK using createCanvas , declaring its identity, description, and all agent-callable actions with JSON Schema validation on inputs: createCanvas({ id: "multi-agent-dev", displayName: "Multi-Agent Dev Canvas", description: "Runtime observability and control plane for multi-agent development", actions: [ { name: "decompose_system", description: "Break requirements into agent tasks", inputSchema: { type: "object", properties: { requirements: { type: "string" }, components: { type: "array", items: { type: "string" } } }, required: ["requirements"] }, handler: async (ctx) => { /* ... */ }, }, // ... six more actions ], open: async (ctx) => { /* start server, return URL */ }, onClose: async (ctx) => { /* clean up */ }, }); Scenarios This Enables The Multi-Agent Dev Canvas supports four development scenarios that would be impossible with traditional tooling: 1. End-to-End Feature Design Tell the agent "Build an AI-powered code review system." Watch it decompose the requirement into five components, route tasks to specialist agents, execute the workflow, and validate the outputs, all visible in real time. Iterate by modifying constraints or components and re-running. 2. Live Agent Collaboration Observation See how agents hand off work to each other. The flow graph shows which agent produced what, which tasks are pending, and where bottlenecks form. This is the kind of observability you need when debugging multi-agent orchestration but would never expose in a production UI. 3. Fault Injection and Adaptation Testing Use inject_failure to force an agent into an error state. Watch how the system responds. Does the orchestrator recover? Do downstream tasks fail gracefully? This chaos-engineering approach, applied during development, visible in real time, catches integration failures before they reach production. 4. Validation-Driven Iteration Define test criteria, run validation, see which tests fail, update the system design, re-run. The validation panel isn't a separate CI pipeline, it's embedded in the development surface, creating a continuous feedback loop between design decisions and their measurable outcomes. Getting Started: Build Your Own Canvas Extension To create a Canvas extension in your own project: Read the SDK docs — Run extensions_manage({ operation: "guide" }) in GitHub Copilot CLI to get the canonical documentation paths. Scaffold — Run extensions_manage({ operation: "scaffold", kind: "canvas", name: "my-canvas", location: "project" }) to generate the boilerplate. Implement — Edit extension.mjs with your canvas logic: state model, actions, renderer HTML, and SSE updates. Reload — Run extensions_reload to activate your changes. Drive — Open with open_canvas , invoke actions with invoke_canvas_action , and iterate. The canvas extension lives in .github/extensions/your-canvas/extension.mjs for project-scoped extensions, or in your user extensions directory for personal use. No package.json needed, the github/copilot-sdk import is auto-resolved. Key Takeaways Canvas is a development runtime, not a UI framework. You don't build Canvas instead of your UI, you use Canvas to figure out, test, and evolve the UI and system before and during building it. Canvas solves problems your final UI should never expose. Agent observability, fault injection, live state mutation, validation feedback loops, these are development concerns, not user concerns. Canvas is Human-to-AI-to-System collaboration. Both the developer and the AI agent operate on the same surface, the same state, the same running system. It's Figma-like collaboration, but with AI agents, and things actually execute. Canvas turns debugging, testing, and execution into a continuous visual feedback loop. Instead of switching between an editor, a terminal, a test runner, and a monitoring dashboard, you have one surface where the system lives and evolves. Canvas extensions are lightweight. A single extension.mjs file, no dependencies, loopback HTTP server with SSE, the infrastructure gets out of the way so you can focus on the system you're building. The Bigger Picture Canvas redefines software development by shifting from writing static code to orchestrating living systems. Developers and AI co-create, observe, and evolve solutions in real time. Instead of building UIs for users, we build interactive environments for agents, turning debugging, testing, and execution into a continuous, visual feedback loop that accelerates innovation and brings ideas to production faster than ever. The Multi-Agent Dev Canvas we built here is one example. The pattern applies anywhere you're building agent-driven systems: AI orchestration, workflow automation, data pipelines, autonomous services. Anywhere you need to see, steer, and validate a complex system as it runs, that's where Canvas belongs. Resources copilot-canvas-runtime — this repository: the Multi-Agent Dev Canvas extension, scenario, and demo prompt GitHub Copilot Documentation — Official documentation for GitHub Copilot features Microsoft Foundry Documentation — Build and deploy AI agents with Microsoft FoundryGitHub Copilot App Canvas Is a Runtime
There is a quiet shift happening in how we build software with AI. We are moving from writing static code to orchestrating living systems where developers and AI agents co-create, observe, and evolve a solution in real time. This post is a working theory of what GitHub Copilot App Canvas is actually for, grounded in a real, runnable demo you can clone today: leestott/agent-runtime-canvas. The Agent Runtime canvas open beside the chat — control bar, activity spotlight, requirement & constraints, and the live agent roster. The headline claim, which the rest of this post defends with code: Traditional UIs are for using software. Canvas is for shaping software while it runs. 1. The misconception worth getting out of the way The first instinct most engineers have when they see Canvas is to build a UI with it a dashboard, a DevOps board, an admin panel. That is the wrong mental model, and it leads to disappointment. A Kanban board rendered in Canvas is just a worse version of a tool that already exists. Canvas is not where your users live. It is where your system becomes visible to you and to the AI while you are still figuring it out. The distinction matters: You don't build Canvas instead of your UI. You use Canvas to figure out, test, and evolve the UI and the system before and during building it. Canvas solves problems your final UI should never try to solve in a visible way agent coordination, intermediate state, test validation, failure propagation. These are observability concerns, not end-user features. Canvas is intended for test validation and the implementation of agent-driven solutions not for shipping a production control panel. A useful analogy: Figma is Human-to-Human one person designs a static artifact for another person to read. Canvas is Human-to-AI-to-System a shared surface where a human, an AI agent, and a running system all act on the same live model. Figma shows you a picture of the software. Canvas is a runtime where things actually execute. 2. The positioning, stated plainly Here is the thesis the demo is built to prove: Canvas redefines software development by shifting from writing static code to orchestrating living systems, where developers and AI co-create, observe, and evolve solutions in real time. Instead of building UIs for users, we build interactive environments for agents — turning debugging, testing, and execution into a continuous, visual feedback loop that accelerates innovation and brings ideas to production faster than ever. Read that again with the demo in mind, because the demo is not a slide, it is a working Copilot CLI extension that renders exactly this loop. 3. What we built: the Agent Runtime canvas agent-runtime-canvas is a GitHub Copilot CLI canvas extension called Agent Runtime. It turns Canvas into a runtime observability and control plane for a multi-agent software system that is being designed, tested, and evolved in real time. The canvas renders a single living SystemModel that both humans and the AI agent edit at the same time. The agent drives it through five canvas actions; the human drives it through panel controls. Every change streams to the iframe over Server-Sent Events (SSE), so the system visibly evolves through interaction. The seven panels: a system you can watch think Panel What it makes observable Requirement & constraints The feature under design plus editable policies and constraints Agents Active agents, their responsibilities, and live state (idle / working / done / error / blocked) Task Flow The dependency graph of tasks across agents, with live status Artifacts The intermediate outputs each task emits Validation Test cases, pass/fail, expected vs. actual, and the reasoning behind each verdict Live State The shared memory objects the agents read and write — directly human-editable Timeline A change-over-time log, including before→after state diffs None of these are things you would put in front of an end user. All of them are things you desperately want to see while you and an AI are co-designing an agentic system. The five agent actions The AI co-creates and evolves the system by calling five actions, declared in the canvas extension: Action Effect decompose_system Break a requirement into collaborating agents + a task-flow graph execute_workflow Coordinate agents to advance tasks ( step / run / pause / resume / reset ) validate_output Run evaluation tests, return structured pass/fail + reasoning update_system_design Modify architecture/logic: requirement, constraints, agents, tasks track_state Persist/update a shared state object, recording the diff on the timeline The critical detail is that human controls and agent actions funnel through the exact same store. There is no separate "AI view" and "human view" — one model, two kinds of participant. 4. How it actually works (the parts that matter) The extension is deliberately small and dependency-free. It uses only Node's built-in modules plus github/copilot-sdk , which the CLI auto-resolves. Three files do the work: .github/extensions/agent-runtime/ extension.mjs # wiring: loopback HTTP server, SSE, /control, 5 canvas actions store.mjs # durable SystemModel + execution engine + validation ui.mjs # iframe renderer (system view, validation, state, timeline) One shared model, broadcast on every mutation The heart of the demo is the SystemStore . It is an EventEmitter : every mutation bumps a version, appends a timeline entry, persists to disk, and broadcasts a fresh snapshot to all connected panels. This is the single line that makes "humans and AI edit the same live system" true rather than aspirational: // store.mjs — every change is versioned, logged, persisted, and broadcast. _commit(eventType, summary, detail) { this.model.version += 1; this.model.updatedAt = now(); if (eventType) { this.model.timeline.unshift({ id: uid("ev"), ts: now(), type: eventType, summary, detail: detail || null, }); this.model.timeline = this.model.timeline.slice(0, 200); } this._queueSave(); // best-effort JSON persistence under ~/.copilot this.emit("change", this.model); // fan out to every SSE client return this.model; } The agent action and the human button hit the same method In extension.mjs , the canvas action handler and the iframe's /control POST both call store.execute(...) . That symmetry is the whole point — neither the human nor the AI is privileged: // extension.mjs — a human control POST maps onto the same store method // the AI agent calls through the execute_workflow canvas action. function applyControl(store, body) { switch (body.action) { case "execute": return store.execute(body.mode || "step", body); case "validate": return store.validate(body.tests); case "decompose":return store.decompose(body.requirement, body); case "inject_failure": return store.injectFailure(body.taskKey); case "edit_state": return store.editState(body.key, body.value); // ...requirement, constraints, clear_failures, update_design } } Execution you can watch one task at a time The engine advances the task graph through a visible begin→dwell→finish lifecycle so the active agent is always observable. A ready task is one whose dependencies are all done : // store.mjs — the scheduler only starts a task when its deps are satisfied. _readyTask() { return this.model.tasks.find( (t) => t.status === "pending" && t.deps.every((d) => { const dep = this.model.tasks.find((x) => x.id === d); return dep && dep.status === "done"; }), ); } When a task finishes, its agent emits an artifact and writes to shared state; when a dependency fails, the engine walks the graph to a fixpoint and marks every downstream task blocked . That is failure propagation you can see — exactly the kind of thing a production UI would (correctly) hide, and exactly the kind of thing you need exposed while designing the system. Validation as a first-class, re-runnable citizen The default evaluation suite asserts properties of the running system, not of static code — every test returns an expected value, an actual value, and a human -readable reason: // store.mjs — tests assert properties of the live system model. _defaultTests() { const t = (name, target, assertion) => ({ id: uid("test"), name, target, assertion }); return [ t("All tasks reach a terminal state", "tasks", "no_pending"), t("No tasks failed", "tasks", "none_failed"), t("Every completed task emitted an artifact", "artifacts", "artifact_per_done"), t("Design state populated before build", "state", "design_before_build"), t("Decision recorded by Reviewer", "state", "has_decision"), ]; } This is the "continuous, visual feedback loop" from the thesis, made concrete: decompose → execute → validate → redesign → re-validate, with the Timeline recording every before→after transition. 5. Run it yourself You need a GitHub Copilot CLI / app with canvas support (the canvas-renderer capability) and this repo opened as your workspace. There is no npm install the SDK is auto-resolved and the extension uses only built-in Node modules. Clone and open the workspace. git clone https://github.com/leestott/agent-runtime-canvas.git cd agent-runtime-canvas The extension auto-discovers from .github/extensions/agent-runtime/ . Open the canvas with a requirement. Ask Copilot: Open the Agent Runtime canvas with the requirement "Add CSV export to the reports page". Walk the loop. Decompose into five agents and a six-task graph, press Run ▶, watch the spotlight track the active agent, press Run tests ✓ for 5/5 green, then Inject failure ⚡ to watch downstream tasks go blocked and validation drop to 4/5 — and recover. State persists per documentId under ~/.copilot/extensions/agent-runtime/artifacts/ , so a reload resumes exactly where you left off. The companion demoscript.md in the repo gives you a tight, timed walkthrough. 6. Why this is an observability story Once you accept that Canvas is a runtime rather than a UI, the most compelling use case becomes observability of agentic systems. Agentic software is notoriously hard to debug: the interesting behavior lives in intermediate state, coordination order, and the moments where one agent's failure cascades into another's. A production UI is designed to hide all of that. A Canvas is designed to surface it, temporarily, while you are shaping the system — and then get out of the way. This reframes Canvas alongside the broader Microsoft and GitHub agent tooling story. As teams adopt the GitHub Copilot SDK and patterns like the open Model Context Protocol to wire agents into real systems, the gap is rarely "can the agent act?" it is "can a human see what the agent did, judge it, and steer it?" Canvas is a candidate answer to that second question. When you take agents toward production on Azure with services like Microsoft Foundry, the same instinct applies: build the evaluation and observability loop first, and let it shape the system before you commit a single end-user pixel. 7. The open question: why can't Canvas be multi-user? There is an obvious next frontier, and it is worth stating as an honest open question rather than a finished feature. Everything that makes Canvas valuable also makes it a natural collaborative surface: It is a shared space. It is visual. It is collaborative. Multiple participants — human and AI — interact with the same surface. If Figma earned its place by making Human-to-Human design multiplayer, the provocative question is whether a project- or repo-scoped Canvas can make Human-to-AI-to-System development multiplayer too: several engineers and several agents shaping one running system on one surface. The demo here is single-user by design, but its architecture — one shared store, versioned, broadcast to every subscriber — is already the shape you would need. That is a genuine research direction, and worth experimenting with as licensing and access broaden. 8. Honest limitations In the spirit of building credibility rather than hype: This is a demonstration. The decomposition, artifacts, and state are synthesized to make the runtime loop legible — it models an agentic system rather than running arbitrary production agents. It is single-user and single-machine. The loopback HTTP server and per-document store are local by design; multi-user is an aspiration, not a shipped capability. Access is gated. Canvas support requires a Copilot CLI/app build with the canvas-renderer capability. Licensing and preview access are the biggest practical blockers to wider experimentation today. Persistence is best-effort. State is written to a local JSON artifact; treat it as demo durability, not a database. Key takeaways Don't build a UI in Canvas. Use Canvas to shape, test, and evolve a system — and the UI — while it runs. Traditional UIs are for using software; Canvas is for shaping software while it runs. Canvas is Human-to-AI-to-System, a runtime where things execute — not a static design surface. Its strongest use case is observability and validation of agentic systems: surface the intermediate state your production UI should hide. The shared-model architecture — one versioned store broadcast to every participant — is what makes human + AI co-editing real, and what hints at a multi-user future. Next steps Clone and run the demo: github.com/leestott/agent-runtime-canvas. Read the extension source under .github/extensions/agent-runtime/ — start with store.mjs . Explore the building blocks: the GitHub Copilot SDK, the Model Context Protocol, and Microsoft Foundry for taking agentic systems toward production. Try the multi-user thought experiment: fork the store, add a second subscriber, and ask what changes when two humans and two agents share one surface.Master the Command Line with GitHub Copilot CLI:
If you are a student aiming to become an AI engineer or a software developer, the terminal is about to become your most powerful classroom. https://github.com/features/copilot/cli/ brings an AI agent directly into your command line, and its slash commands (typed as /something ) are the shortcuts that unlock its real capabilities. The problem most students hit is simple: they install a powerful tool and then only ever use 10% of it. They type questions, get answers, and never discover the commands that turn Copilot CLI from a chatbot into a genuine pair programmer. This post fixes that. We will walk through the most useful slash commands, explain why you would reach for each one, and give you concrete student scenarios for every command. Why This Matters Now AI-assisted development is no longer optional in the industry. Employers increasingly expect graduates to be fluent with AI developer tools, not just programming languages. Learning the Copilot CLI slash commands early gives you two advantages: Speed: You spend less time context-switching between docs, terminal, and editor. Good habits: Commands like code review and security review teach you professional workflows while you are still learning. Everything below is grounded in the actual command set shipped in Copilot CLI. To see the full, current list at any time, just type /help inside the CLI. How to Run a Slash Command Slash commands are typed at the Copilot CLI prompt. Start a command with a forward slash and the CLI shows you an autocomplete menu: # Launch the CLI copilot # Then, at the prompt, type a slash to browse commands / # Or jump straight to one /model /plan /review A few related shortcuts are worth memorising on day one: ? — show quick help @ — mention files so Copilot reads them # — mention GitHub issues and pull requests ! — execute a raw shell command without leaving the prompt The Most Useful Slash Commands for Students The table below groups the highest-value commands by the job you are trying to do. Each row includes a realistic student scenario so you know exactly when to reach for it. Learning and Planning Command What it does Student scenario: why use it /plan Creates an implementation plan before any code is written. You have a coursework project ("build a sentiment classifier") but no idea where to start. Run /plan to get a step-by-step roadmap you can follow and learn from, instead of diving in blind. /research Runs a deep research investigation using GitHub search and web sources. For a dissertation or capstone, you need to compare approaches (e.g. "vector databases for RAG"). Use /research to gather grounded, cited findings rather than guessing. /ask Asks a quick side question without adding it to the conversation history. Mid-project you forget what a Python decorator does. Ask with /ask so your main task context stays clean and focused. /model Selects which AI model to use (or auto to let Copilot pick). A simple formatting fix needs a fast model; a tricky algorithm needs a stronger one. Learn to match the model to the task — a real engineering skill. Writing and Reviewing Code Command What it does Student scenario: why use it /diff Reviews the changes made in the current directory. Before submitting an assignment, run /diff to see exactly what changed — catch that debug print() you forgot to remove. /review Runs a code review agent to analyse your changes. No teaching assistant available at 2am? /review gives you professional-style feedback on bugs and logic errors so you learn before the deadline, not after grading. /security-review Analyses staged and unstaged changes for security vulnerabilities. Building a web app for a module? Run /security-review to spot issues like injection flaws — and start building the security mindset employers want. /pr Operates on pull requests for the current branch. Contributing to a group project or open source? Use /pr to manage pull requests and learn the collaboration workflow used in every real engineering team. /ide Connects Copilot to an IDE workspace. You prefer working in VS Code. Connect with /ide so Copilot understands your open files and editor context. Managing Your Work Session Command What it does Student scenario: why use it /resume Switches to a different saved session. You worked on a lab yesterday and want to continue today. /resume brings back the full context instead of starting from scratch. /context Shows context-window token usage and a visualization. Copilot seems to be "forgetting" earlier details. Check /context to understand how much conversation history fits — a core concept for any aspiring AI engineer. /compact Summarises conversation history to reduce context usage. Long debugging session running out of context? /compact condenses it so you can keep going without losing the thread. /undo / /rewind Rewinds the last turn and reverts file changes. Copilot made an edit that broke your tests. /undo safely rolls it back so you can experiment fearlessly. /usage Displays session usage metrics and statistics. Curious how much you are relying on the AI? /usage helps you stay aware of your consumption and learning balance. Setting Up and Extending the Environment Command What it does Student scenario: why use it /init Initialises Copilot instructions for the current repository. Starting a new project repo? /init sets up custom instructions so Copilot follows your project's conventions consistently. /mcp Manages Model Context Protocol (MCP) server configuration. Want Copilot to query a database or external tool? /mcp connects MCP servers — a cutting-edge skill for AI engineering portfolios. /agent Browses and selects specialised agents. Different tasks suit different agents. /agent lets you pick the right specialist for the job. /memory Shows memory status, or enables/disables memory across sessions. Want Copilot to remember your preferences (e.g. "I use Python type hints")? Manage that with /memory . A Realistic Student Workflow, End to End Here is how these commands fit together for a typical assignment — building a small machine learning script. Notice how the commands chain into a professional development loop: # 1. Plan the work before touching code /plan # 2. Pick an appropriate model for the task /model # 3. Let Copilot reference your data file @data/train.csv # 4. After Copilot writes code, see what changed /diff # 5. Get an automated code review /review # 6. Check for security issues before you submit /security-review # 7. If an edit broke something, roll it back /undo This loop —> plan, build, review, secure, iterate, is exactly the cycle used by professional engineering teams. By practising it now with Copilot CLI, you are rehearsing the workflow you will use in your first job. Responsible Use: Learn With AI, Not Instead Of It A quick but important note for students. AI assistance is a learning accelerator, not a replacement for understanding. Keep these principles in mind: Read the explanations, not just the code. Use /ask and /review to understand why something works. Check your institution's policy. Many courses have rules about AI use in assessed work, make sure you comply and cite appropriately. Never paste secrets. Keep API keys, passwords, and personal data out of prompts. Verify before you trust. Run the code, read the security review, and confirm claims against official documentation. Key Takeaways Slash commands turn Copilot CLI from a Q&A box into a full development partner. Start with /plan , /diff , /review , and /security-review they build professional habits immediately. Use /model , /context , and /compact to understand how AI systems actually work under the hood. Type /help any time to see the complete, current command list for your version. Next Steps and Resources Read the official guide: Use GitHub Copilot CLI Explore the broader docs: GitHub Copilot documentation Open the CLI and run /help to browse every command interactively. Pick one assignment this week and run the full plan → review → security-review loop on it. The fastest way to learn is to try. Launch Copilot CLI, type a single / , and start exploring. Your future engineering self will thank you.Action Required: Migrate Your Copilot CLI MCP Config Away from .vscode/mcp.json
If you use the GitHub Copilot CLI with Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, you may have hit this message on launch: Copilot CLI's incomplete support for .vscode/mcp.json has been removed. See https://gh.io/copilotcli-mcpmigrate to migrate to .mcp.json or .github/mcp.json . This is a quick, one-time fix. Here's what changed, why, and exactly what you need to do. What Changed The Copilot CLI previously made a best-effort attempt to read .vscode/mcp.json , the file VS Code uses to define MCP servers. That support was incomplete, so it has been removed. The CLI now loads MCP servers only from its own dedicated files: .mcp.json in your project root (or working directory) .github/mcp.json in your repository Your .vscode/mcp.json file is not deleted and still works for VS Code. The CLI simply no longer reads it. Why It Matters The VS Code and Copilot CLI configuration formats look similar but are not identical. Two differences trip people up: The top-level key is servers in VS Code, but mcpServers in the CLI. The CLI requires a type field on each server (for example, "local" for a stdio command-based server, or "http" for a remote server). Because of these differences, you can't just rename the file — you also need to adjust its contents. What You Need to Do Step 1: Find your existing config Locate the VS Code MCP file you've been using, for example: // .vscode/mcp.json (VS Code format) { "servers": { "workiq": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "@microsoft/workiq", "mcp"], "tools": ["*"] } } } Step 2: Create .mcp.json in the same directory Convert it to the Copilot CLI format by renaming the top-level key and adding "type" : // .mcp.json (Copilot CLI format) { "mcpServers": { "workiq": { "type": "local", "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "@microsoft/workiq", "mcp"], "tools": ["*"] } } } Prefer the change to live with your repository so teammates pick it up automatically? Put the same content in .github/mcp.json instead. Step 3: Verify From the directory containing the new file, list the servers the CLI can see: copilot mcp list You should see your server reported, for example workiq (local) , and the startup warning will stop. Quick Reference VS Code ( .vscode/mcp.json ) Copilot CLI ( .mcp.json / .github/mcp.json ) Top-level key servers Top-level key mcpServers No type field Add "type": "local" (stdio) or "http" (remote) Read by VS Code only Read by Copilot CLI only Don't Forget Your Other Repositories This setting is per-directory. If you run copilot inside multiple projects that each have a .vscode/mcp.json , repeat the migration in each one. The change is always the same: rename servers to mcpServers and add a type to every server. Key Takeaways The Copilot CLI no longer reads .vscode/mcp.json . Move your MCP servers into .mcp.json (project) or .github/mcp.json (repo). Change the key from servers to mcpServers and add "type" to each server. Leave .vscode/mcp.json in place so VS Code keeps working. Confirm with copilot mcp list . Learn More Copilot CLI MCP migration guidance GitHub Copilot CLI command reference Model Context Protocol
Mind the Specs: Grading formal specifications and KPIs as artefacts for LLM-driven code generation
Large language models now write code straight from a prompt, but the specification in between is never checked, and a model asked to judge its own work brings the same blind spots to the review. We built a pipeline that lifts a plain-language requirements bundle into two graded specifications (a formal Alloy model and a set of numerical KPI targets), scores both before a single line of code is written, and hands the graded result to the code generator. It starts from GitHub Spec Kit and the Azure Well-Architected Framework. Here is what we built, and what we learned from running it at scale. The problem Writing software used to be four separate activities: gathering requirements, writing a specification, verifying it, and implementing it. A language model collapses all four into a single step. Two of those activities used to give us a quality signal before any code existed: a formal specification you could inspect, and measurable targets an implementation had to hit. The prompt-to-code loop inherits neither. There is no externally observable signal, before a line of code is written, that the requirements a model received are even well-formed enough to drive a correct implementation. You might think the model could just check its own work. It cannot do so reliably. Ask a language model to check the logic it just wrote: not only will it bring the same blind spot to the review, but its stochastic nature will make it produce different answers on each run. A SAT solver does not behave this way. Its verdict is deterministic: the same specification produces the same verdict every time. The thing that historically kept formal specification out of everyday development was never its rigour, it was the cost of writing the specification by hand. And that is exactly the step a language model can now do. What we built We built an agentic pipeline that sits between the requirements and the generated code. In plain terms it takes the requirements once, turns them into two things that can be checked by a machine: a precise description of rules that the system must obey, and a set of measurable targets that the system must hit. These artefacts are both graded, and are handed to the code generator. We split the work in two and gave each half to the tool that is good at it. The language model does the creative part, turning messy prose into formal structure. Deterministic checks, not the model's own opinion, grade what it produces. From a single Spec Kit artefacts bundle the pipeline builds two graded specifications before any code exists, and then carries both into code generation. Since these grades are computed deterministically rather than just generated, you can actually trust them. The input is a GitHub Spec Kit bundle. Spec Kit is an open-source, specification-first toolkit: instead of prompting for code directly, you describe what you want to build, and it produces a set of structured artefacts, a feature specification, a data model, and a set of API contracts. Our pipeline reads that bundle and turns it into the two graded specifications in parallel. overview. Spec Kit artefacts on the left. The Alloy lifter (with SAT solver and the attack step) and the KPI agent run in parallel. Their graded outputs are merged into a verification report that feeds the guided code generator. A dashed baseline path feeds the goal alone to the generator for comparison. Lift the requirements into a formal model The first half is structural. An Alloy lifter translates the requirements into a formal model written in Alloy, a specification language whose rules a SAT solver can check exhaustively, and whose verdict is deterministic, so the grade never depends on asking an LLM what it thinks. A banking requirement like "zero balance discrepancies" becomes a precise, checkable rule: the money leaving one account and the money arriving in another must always add up to the balances you started with, so a transfer can never quietly create or destroy money. The solver searches for any scenario that would break the rule. We modified Spec Kit's templates to force the model to output functional requirements and their corresponding Alloy code blocks in a structured format. Against the stock templates, that change alone nearly doubled the Alloy code compilation rate, jumping from 40 to 74 percent. A machine-written specification cannot be trusted, though, so the lifter does more than write it: it attacks it. Each load-bearing rule is deliberately broken by clearing its body and injecting a clause that forces a violation and the solver is re-run on the broken model. If the solver fails after this mutation, the original rule genuinely caught the violation it was meant to catch. If it still passes, the rule never really constrained anything on its own. Mutation testing usually grades a test suite against a specification that is assumed correct; here the roles are reversed, and the specification itself is on trial. Turn the requirements into measurable targets The second half is measurable. A KPI agent takes the same Spec Kit bundle, retrieves the most relevant principles from the Azure Well-Architected Framework, and derives numerical targets in the Goal-Question-Metric style. Each target carries an explicit threshold, a direction, and a measurement method, the kind of target a monitoring tool could actually track. Where earlier automated approaches stopped at describing quality in words, this half emits the actual numbers an implementation has to satisfy. And the knowledge base is a setting, not a fixture: swapping the Well-Architected Framework for ISO 25010, the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, or Google's SRE workbook requires zero changes to the underlying code. Review the report before any code Both graded halves merge into one human-readable verification report: the patterns the model applied, which rules passed, the counterexamples the solver found, the attack results, and the KPI threshold table. A developer reads it first and can see exactly where the specification is weak: a rule that passed for the wrong reason, or a requirement that nothing covers. After revising the specification, they re-run the lifting phase. Because the process is cached, re-runs are cheap, allowing the developer to loop until the report looks perfect, all before any code exists. The work shifts from reviewing generated code after the fact to curating a specification and reading a report before anything is built. Carry the graded context into code generation Only then does the report do its real job. In the guided pipeline, the merged report becomes the context handed to a code generator, which is asked to implement each rule, requirement, and KPI threshold and to leave markers tracing the code back to them. A baseline generator gets only the plain-language goal. Same generator, same settings; the only difference is whether it can see the graded specification. Feeding graded artefacts, rather than raw prose, into code generation is the piece that ties the whole pipeline together. So three choices separate this from simply asking a model for a spec: the specification is attacked rather than trusted, the targets are numbers rather than prose, and what reaches the code generator is graded evidence rather than raw text. How we tested it We ran the pipeline at scale: 270 Alloy lifts and 1,930 KPI records, across three application domains chosen to differ sharply (banking, software-as-a-service, and healthcare), three levels of requirement detail, four knowledge bases, and three model tiers, with ten runs of each combination so a real effect could be told apart from noise. For the code-generation half, we generated two codes for each case, once with the graded report as context and once from the plain-language goal alone, and compared the two. What we found First, the foundation: the specifications proved gradeable. The rubric cleanly separated sound specifications from degenerate ones. Because it returned the same verdict run after run, the grades are reliable enough to act on. The three key observations are as follows: The model matters more than the prompt Of the two knobs a practitioner controls, the model you choose and the amount of detail you write, the model dominated by roughly nine to one. A weak model could not be rescued by richer requirements. But you do not need the most expensive one: a mid-tier model delivered about 98 percent of the best model's quality at under a third of the cost and about half the time. The cheapest tier was a false economy, producing a model the analyser could even load only 23 percent of the time. More detail can backfire More requirements are not always better. Sparse and standard requirements scored the same, but over-specified requirements collapsed: KPI quality fell from about 0.89 to about 0.73, and the effect held across all four knowledge bases. Pile in too much numerical detail and the pipeline starts echoing the numbers it was handed instead of deriving sound ones, which is the opposite of what more detail is supposed to buy. Graded context produces far better code This is the payoff, and it is the point of the whole pipeline. Across all nine combinations of domain and detail, code generated with the graded verification context scored about 8 out of 10, against about 1 out of 10 for the same generator given only the plain-language goal. The guided code carried the traceability back to each requirement, the named rules, and the structural patterns that a bare prompt gives us no way to know about. This part of the study is a single run per combination, so we report the size and the consistency of the gap rather than a precise average, but the gap was large and it held in every case. What this means for you Four things to take from our study into your own work: Write requirements at a standard, middle level of detail. Not sparse, and not exhaustively numerical. The middle is the sweet spot on both halves of the specification. Reach for a capable mid-tier model before you invest in heavy prompt engineering. Model choice moves quality more than requirement detail does, and the mid tier is the value leader. Give the code generator externally graded context instead of letting it specify for itself. That is where most of the quality gain came from. Treat the knowledge base as a setting worth tuning, not a fixed ingredient. Each is a recommendation that data supports under the conditions we tested, not a universal law. The limit Every grade measures structure, not meaning. A high score says the specification is well-formed, discriminating, and stable. It does not say whether the invariants are the right ones, or the thresholds are the right ones for your deployment. A specification can be perfectly well-formed and still describe the wrong system. That judgement stays with a human, which is where we think it belongs. The pipeline is built to make that judgement efficient by moving it earlier, to curating the specification and reading the report, rather than to remove it. Generated code should not be shipped end to end without human validation. Try it The full pipeline, every input, and the artefacts behind every figure are in the project repository. If you want the Microsoft tools it builds on, start here: Project repository: https://github.com/RadaanMadhan/Specification-Led-Development GitHub Spec Kit: https://github.com/github/spec-kit Azure Well-Architected Framework: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/well-architected/ If you'd like to explore the work in more detail, we've included the full technical report in the project repository, covering the related work, methodology, pipeline design, experimental setup, and extended results. About the team This project was carried out by six students at Imperial College London: Leon Hausmann, Charlotte Maxwell, Radaan Madhan, Keshav Das, Anson Huang, and Ander Cobo, in collaboration with Microsoft and supervised by Lee Stott (Microsoft) and Max Cattafi (Imperial College London)Mastering Query Fields in Azure AI Document Intelligence with C#
Introduction Azure AI Document Intelligence simplifies document data extraction, with features like query fields enabling targeted data retrieval. However, using these features with the C# SDK can be tricky. This guide highlights a real-world issue, provides a corrected implementation, and shares best practices for efficient usage. Use case scenario During the cause of Azure AI Document Intelligence software engineering code tasks or review, many developers encountered an error while trying to extract fields like "FullName," "CompanyName," and "JobTitle" using `AnalyzeDocumentAsync`: The error might be similar to Inner Error: The parameter urlSource or base64Source is required. This is a challenge referred to as parameter errors and SDK changes. Most problematic code are looks like below in C#: BinaryData data = BinaryData.FromBytes(Content); var queryFields = new List<string> { "FullName", "CompanyName", "JobTitle" }; var operation = await client.AnalyzeDocumentAsync( WaitUntil.Completed, modelId, data, "1-2", queryFields: queryFields, features: new List<DocumentAnalysisFeature> { DocumentAnalysisFeature.QueryFields } ); One of the reasons this failed was that the developer was using `Azure.AI.DocumentIntelligence v1.0.0`, where `base64Source` and `urlSource` must be handled internally. Because the older examples using `AnalyzeDocumentContent` no longer apply and leading to errors. Practical Solution Using AnalyzeDocumentOptions. Alternative Method using manual JSON Payload. Using AnalyzeDocumentOptions The correct method involves using AnalyzeDocumentOptions, which streamlines the request construction using the below steps: Prepare the document content: BinaryData data = BinaryData.FromBytes(Content); Create AnalyzeDocumentOptions: var analyzeOptions = new AnalyzeDocumentOptions(modelId, data) { Pages = "1-2", Features = { DocumentAnalysisFeature.QueryFields }, QueryFields = { "FullName", "CompanyName", "JobTitle" } }; - `modelId`: Your trained model’s ID. - `Pages`: Specify pages to analyze (e.g., "1-2"). - `Features`: Enable `QueryFields`. - `QueryFields`: Define which fields to extract. Run the analysis: Operation<AnalyzeResult> operation = await client.AnalyzeDocumentAsync( WaitUntil.Completed, analyzeOptions ); AnalyzeResult result = operation.Value; The reason this works: The SDK manages `base64Source` automatically. This approach matches the latest SDK standards. It results in cleaner, more maintainable code. Alternative method using manual JSON payload For advanced use cases where more control over the request is needed, you can manually create the JSON payload. For an example: var queriesPayload = new { queryFields = new[] { new { key = "FullName" }, new { key = "CompanyName" }, new { key = "JobTitle" } } }; string jsonPayload = JsonSerializer.Serialize(queriesPayload); BinaryData requestData = BinaryData.FromString(jsonPayload); var operation = await client.AnalyzeDocumentAsync( WaitUntil.Completed, modelId, requestData, "1-2", features: new List<DocumentAnalysisFeature> { DocumentAnalysisFeature.QueryFields } ); When to use the above: Custom request formats Non-standard data source integration Key points to remember Breaking changes exist between preview versions and v1.0.0 by checking the SDK version. Prefer `AnalyzeDocumentOptions` for simpler, error-free integration by using built-In classes. Ensure your content is wrapped in `BinaryData` or use a direct URL for correct document input: Conclusion Using AnalyzeDocumentOptions provides a cleaner and more reliable way to work with query fields in Azure AI Document Intelligence using C#. By aligning with the latest SDK approach, developers can simplify implementation, reduce common errors, and improve code maintainability. Keeping up with SDK enhancements and recommended practices ensures more accurate and efficient document data extraction. As Azure AI capabilities continue to evolve, adopting modern integration patterns will help you build scalable and future-ready document processing solutions with greater confidence. Reference Official AnalyzeDocumentAsync Documentation. Official Azure SDK documentation. Azure Document Intelligence C# SDK support add-on query field.
