Turning GitHub Copilot into a “Best Practices Coach” with Copilot Spaces + a Markdown Knowledge Base
Why Copilot Spaces + Markdown repos work so well When you ask Copilot generic questions (“How should we log errors?” “What’s our API versioning approach?”), the model will often respond with reasonable defaults. But reasonable defaults are not the same as your standards. Copilot Spaces solve the context problem by allowing you to attach a curated set of sources (files, folders, repos, PRs/issues, uploads, free text) plus explicit instructions—so Copilot answers in the context of your team’s rules and artifacts. Spaces can be shared with your team and stay updated as the underlying GitHub content changes—so your “best practices coach” stays evergreen. The architecture (high level) Here’s the mental model: Engineering Knowledge Base Repo: A dedicated repo containing your standards as Markdown (coding style, architecture decisions, security rules, testing conventions, examples, templates). Copilot Space: “Engineering Standards Coach”: A Space that attaches the knowledge base repo (or key folders/files within it), optionally your main application repo(s), and a short set of “rules of engagement” (instructions). In-repo reinforcement (optional but powerful): Custom instruction files (repo-wide + path-specific) and prompt files (slash commands) inside your production repos to standardize behavior and workflows. Step 1 Create a Knowledge Base repo (Markdown-first) Create a repo such as: engineering-knowledge-base platform-playbook org-standards A practical starter structure: engineering-knowledge-base/ README.md standards/ coding-style.md logging.md error-handling.md performance.md security/ secure-coding.md secrets.md threat-modeling.md architecture/ overview.md adr/ 0001-service-boundaries.md 0002-api-versioning.md testing/ unit-testing.md integration-testing.md contract-testing.md templates/ pr-review-checklist.md api-design-checklist.md definition-of-done.md Tip: Keep these docs opinionated, concrete, and example-heavy—Copilot works best when it can point to specific patterns rather than abstract principles. Step 2 Create a Copilot Space and attach your sources Create a space, name it, choose an owner (personal or organization), then add sources and instructions. Inside the Space, add two types of context: Instructions (how Copilot should behave) and Sources (your actual code and docs). 2.1 Instructions (how Copilot should behave in this Space) Example instructions you can paste: You are the Engineering Standards Coach for this organization. Goals: - Recommend solutions that follow our standards in the attached knowledge base. - When proposing code, align with our logging, error-handling, security, and testing guidelines. - When uncertain, ask for the missing repo context or point to the exact standard that applies. Output format: - Start with the standard(s) you are applying (with a link or filename reference). - Then provide the recommended implementation. - Include a lightweight checklist for reviewers. 2.2 Sources (your real “knowledge base”) Attach: The knowledge base repo (or just the folders that matter) Your main code repo(s) (or select folders) PR checklist and Definition of Done templates Key architecture docs, runbooks, or troubleshooting guides Step 3 (Optional) Add instruction files to your production repos Spaces are excellent for curated context and team-wide “ask me anything about our standards.” But you can reinforce consistency directly inside each repo by adding custom instruction files. 3.1 Repo-wide instructions (.github/copilot-instructions.md) Create: your-app-repo/.github/copilot-instructions.md # Repository Copilot Instructions ## Tech stack - Language: TypeScript (strict) - Framework: Node.js + Express - Testing: Jest - Lint/format: ESLint + Prettier ## Engineering rules - Use structured logging as defined in /docs/logging.md - Never log secrets or raw tokens - Prefer small, composable functions - All new endpoints must include: input validation, authz checks, unit tests, and consistent error handling ## Build & test - Install: npm ci - Test: npm test - Lint: npm run lint 3.2 Path-specific instructions (.github/instructions/*.instructions.md) Create: your-app-repo/.github/instructions/security.instructions.md --- applyTo: "**/*.ts" --- # Security rules (TypeScript) - Never introduce dynamic SQL construction; use parameterized queries only. - Any new external HTTP call must enforce timeouts and retry policy. - Any auth logic must include negative tests. Step 4 (Optional) Turn your best practices into “slash commands” with prompt files To standardize repeatable workflows like code review, test scaffolding, or endpoint scaffolding, create prompt files (slash commands) as .prompt.md files—commonly in .github/prompts/. Engineers invoke them manually in chat by typing /. Create: your-app-repo/.github/prompts/standards-code-review.prompt.md --- description: Review code against our org standards (security, perf, style, tests) --- You are a senior engineer performing a standards-based review. Use these checks: 1) Security: input validation, authz, secrets, injection risks 2) Reliability: error handling, retries/timeouts, edge cases 3) Observability: structured logs, metrics, tracing where relevant 4) Testing: required coverage, negative tests, naming conventions 5) Style: follow repository rules in .github/copilot-instructions.md Output: - Summary (2-3 lines) - Issues (severity: BLOCKER/REQUIRED/SUGGESTION) - Suggested patch snippets (only where confident) - “Ready to merge?” verdict Now any engineer can type /standards-code-review and get the same structured output every time, without rewriting the prompt. How teams actually use this day-to-day Recipe A Onboarding a new engineer Ask inside the Space: “Summarize our service architecture and coding conventions for onboarding. Link the key docs.” Recipe B Writing a feature with best-practice guardrails Ask in the Space: “We’re adding endpoint X. Generate a plan that follows our API versioning ADR and error-handling standard.” Recipe C Enforcing review standards consistently In the repo, run the prompt file: /standards-code-review. Governance and best practices (what to do / what to avoid) Keep Spaces purpose-built. Avoid dumping an entire org into one Space if your goal is consistent, grounded output. Prefer linking the “golden source.” Keep standards in a single repo and update them via PR—treat it like code. Make instructions short but strict. Detailed rules belong in your Markdown standards. Avoid conflicting instruction files. If instructions contradict each other, results can be inconsistent. References (official docs for further reading) About GitHub Copilot Spaces: https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/concepts/context/spaces Creating GitHub Copilot Spaces: https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/how-tos/provide-context/use-copilot-spaces/create-copilot-spaces Adding custom instructions for GitHub Copilot: https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/how-tos/copilot-cli/customize-copilot/add-custom-instructions Use custom instructions in VS Code: https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/copilot/customization/custom-instructions Use prompt files in VS Code: https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/copilot/customization/prompt-files Closing: the “best practices” flywheel Once you implement this pattern, you get a virtuous cycle: teams encode standards as Markdown; Copilot Spaces ground answers in those standards; prompt files and instruction files standardize execution; and code reviews shift from style policing to design and correctness.Moving Beyond Prompts: A Practical Introduction to Spec-Driven Development
In the last year, many of us have started writing code differently. We describe what we want, let AI generate an answer, review it, tweak the prompt, and try again. This loop—prompt, retry, adjust—has quietly become part of our daily workflow. At first, it feels incredibly productive. But as the complexity of the task increases, something changes. The iteration cycle becomes longer, outputs become inconsistent, and the effort shifts from solving the problem to refining the prompt. This is where a subtle but important shift in approach can help: moving from prompt-driven development to spec-driven development. The Problem: Prompt → Retry → Guess Most AI-assisted workflows today look something like this: Write a prompt describing the task Review the generated output Adjust the prompt Repeat until it looks acceptable In practice, this often simplifies to: Prompt → Retry → Guess Figure: Prompt-driven vs spec-driven workflow comparison For simple tasks, this works well. But for anything involving multiple inputs, constraints, or edge cases, the process can become unpredictable. In my experience, the challenge is not the model—it is the lack of structure in how we describe the problem. A Shift in Thinking: From Prompts to Specifications Instead of asking AI to “figure it out,” spec-driven development introduces a simple idea: Define the problem clearly before asking for a solution. A specification (spec) is not a long document—it is a structured way of describing: Inputs Outputs Constraints Edge cases When this structure is provided upfront, the interaction changes significantly. Rather than iterating on vague prompts, you are guiding the system with a clear contract. What This Looks Like in Practice Let’s take a simple example: an order summary API (for example, a backend service hosted on Azure App Service). Without a Spec (Typical Prompt) “Write an API that returns order details for a user.” A model can generate something reasonable, but in practice, the responses often vary: Field names may be inconsistent Pagination may be missing Edge cases (no orders, large datasets) may not be handled Structure may change across iterations Example response (typical output): { "userId": 123, "orders": [ { "id": 1, "amount": 250 } ] } With a Spec (Structured Input) Now consider providing a simple specification: Specification: Input: userId page pageSize Output: userId orders[] orderId totalAmount orderDate pagination page pageSize totalRecords Constraints: Default pageSize = 10 Return empty list if no orders Handle large datasets efficiently Example response (based on the spec): { "userId": 123, "orders": [ { "orderId": 1, "totalAmount": 250, "orderDate": "2024-01-10" } ], "pagination": { "page": 1, "pageSize": 10, "totalRecords": 50 } } Why This Tends to Work The difference here is not just stylistic—it is structural. An unstructured prompt leaves room for interpretation. A spec reduces ambiguity by defining expectations explicitly. In practice, I have observed that providing structured inputs like this often leads to the following: More consistent field naming Better handling of edge cases Reduced need for repeated prompt refinement Rather than relying on trial-and-error, the interaction becomes more predictable and aligned with expectations. Applying This to Existing Code (Refactor Scenario) This approach becomes even more useful when applied to existing code. Instead of asking: “Fix the bug in the Auth controller” You can define expected behavior: Input validation rules Response formats Error handling Authorization behavior The task then becomes aligning the implementation with the defined spec. This shifts the interaction from guesswork to validation—comparing current behavior with intended behavior. Example Comparison (Auth Scenario) Without Spec (Typical Prompt) “Fix the login issue in Auth controller” Possible outcomes include: Partial validation added Inconsistent error responses No clear handling of repeated failed attempts With Spec (Defined Behavior) Spec defines: Validate username and password Return consistent error responses Lock account after 5 failed attempts Do not expose internal errors Resulting behavior: Input validation is consistently applied Error responses follow a defined structure Edge cases like account lockout are handled explicitly This mirrors the same pattern seen in the API example—moving from ambiguity to clearly defined behavior. A Practical Way to Start You do not need new tools or frameworks to try this. A simple workflow that has worked well in practice: Ask – Describe the problem (prompt, discussion, or notes) Write a spec – Define inputs, outputs, constraints Refine – Remove ambiguity Generate – Use the spec as input Validate – Compare output with the spec This adds a small upfront step, but it often reduces back-and-forth iterations later. The Practical Challenge One important point to note: Writing a good spec requires understanding the problem. Spec-driven development does not eliminate complexity—it surfaces it earlier. In many cases, the hardest part is not writing code, but clearly defining: What the system should do What it should not do How it should behave under edge conditions This is also why specs evolve over time. They do not need to be perfect upfront. They improve as your understanding improves. Where This Approach Helps From what I have seen, this approach is most useful in scenarios where the problem involves multiple inputs, defined contracts, or structured outputs such as APIs, schema-driven systems, or refactoring existing code where consistency matters. Where It May Not Be Necessary For simpler tasks such as small scripts, minor UI changes, or quick experiments, a detailed specification may not add much value. In those cases, a straightforward prompt is often sufficient. A Note on Tools Tools like GitHub Copilot, Azure AI Studio, and AI-assisted workflows in Visual Studio Code tend to be more effective when given clear, structured inputs. Spec-driven development is not tied to any specific tool. It is a way of thinking about how we interact with these systems more effectively. References https://github.com/features/copilot https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/prompt-engineering https://github.com/github/spec-kit Amplifier - Modular AI Agent Framework - Amplifier Final Thoughts Many discussions around AI-assisted development focus on what tools can do. This approach focuses on something slightly different: How developers can structure problems more effectively before implementation. In my experience, moving from prompts to specs does not eliminate iteration, but it makes that iteration more predictable and purposeful.
High Availability Testing for Azure Kubernetes Service in a Single Region with Availability Zones
Perform repeatable high availability testing for Azure Kubernetes Service workloads deployed in a single Azure region with Availability Zones. Validate pod recovery, node disruptions, and workload resiliency during infrastructure failures.
What is the right forum for Courseware/Labs Support right now?
Hi All, we are trying to deliver SC200 course. Out MCTs tell us the courseware is not working at all. Video Links are not working eg. (Playback Error - We are sorry something went wrong) https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/videoplayer/embed/RE4yiO5?rel=0&postJsllMsg=true https://www.microsoft.com/videoplayer/embed/RE4bOeh?rel=0 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/videoplayer/embed/RE4bGqo?rel=0&postJsllMsg=true AHL Labs are not working because of cloud slice architecture We (the MCts) use hours to find out how the lab should work in ALH Labs. Missing Permissions Wrong Links I cannot find any contact to get answers to these issues? Can anyone give hints how to discuss these topic. Just to play ping-pong between ALH and "Content Creators" (1 Month Feedback Time) and getting no resolution doesn´t help here. Can you please get back to a working environment. (Full Azure Access, Real World Training Situations) Not a Video Here, a Simulation There. Regards, Mario
The Future of Agentic AI: Inside Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0
Agentic AI is rapidly moving beyond demos and chatbots toward long‑running, autonomous systems that reason, call tools, collaborate with other agents, and operate reliably in production. On April 3, 2026, Microsoft marked a major milestone with the General Availability (GA) release of Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0, a production‑ready, open‑source framework for building agents and multi‑agent workflows in.NET and Python. [techcommun...rosoft.com] In this post, we’ll deep‑dive into: What Microsoft Agent Framework actually is Its core architecture and design principles What’s new in version 1.0 How it differs from other agent frameworks When and how to use it—with real code examples What Is Microsoft Agent Framework? According to the official announcement, Microsoft Agent Framework is an open‑source SDK and runtime for building AI agents and multi‑agent workflows with strong enterprise foundations. Agent Framework provides two primary capability categories: 1. Agents Agents are long‑lived runtime components that: Use LLMs to interpret inputs Call tools and MCP servers Maintain session state Generate responses They are not just prompt wrappers, but stateful execution units. 2. Workflows Workflows are graph‑based orchestration engines that: Connect agents and functions Enforce execution order Support checkpointing and human‑in‑the‑loop scenarios This leads to a clean separation of responsibilities: Concern Handled By Reasoning & interpretation Agent Execution policy & control flow Workflow This separation is a foundational design decision. High‑Level Architecture From the official overview, Agent Framework is composed of several core building blocks: Model clients (chat completions & responses) Agent sessions (state & conversation management) Context providers (memory and retrieval) Middleware pipeline (interception, filtering, telemetry) MCP clients (tool discovery and invocation) Workflow engine (graph‑based orchestration) Conceptual Flow 🌟 What’s New in Version 1.0 Version 1.0 marks the transition from "Release Candidate" to "General Availability" (GA). Production-Ready Stability: Unlike the earlier experimental packages, 1.0 offers stable APIs, versioned releases, and a commitment to long-term support (LTS). A2A Protocol (Agent-to-Agent): A new structured messaging protocol that allows agents to communicate across different runtimes. For example, an agent built in Python can seamlessly coordinate with an agent running in a .NET environment. MCP (Model Context Protocol) Support: Full integration with the Model Context Protocol, enabling agents to dynamically discover and invoke external tools and data sources without manual integration code. Multi-Agent Orchestration Patterns: Stable implementations of complex patterns, including: Sequential: Linear handoffs between specialized agents. Group Chat: Collaborative reasoning where agents discuss and solve problems. Magentic-One: A sophisticated pattern for task-oriented reasoning and planning. Middleware Pipeline: The new middleware architecture lets you inject logic into the agent's execution loop without modifying the core prompts. This is essential for Responsible AI (RAI), allowing you to add content safety filters, logging, and compliance checks globally. DevUI Debugger: A browser-based local debugger that provides a real-time visual representation of agent message flows, tool calls, and state changes. Code Examples Creating a Simple Agent (C#) From Microsoft Learn : using Azure.AI.Projects; using Azure.Identity; using Microsoft.Agents.AI; AIAgent agent = new AIProjectClient( new Uri("https://your-foundry-service.services.ai.azure.com/api/projects/your-project"), new AzureCliCredential()) .AsAIAgent( model: "gpt-5.4-mini", instructions: "You are a friendly assistant. Keep your answers brief."); Console.WriteLine(await agent.RunAsync("What is the largest city in France?")); This shows: Provider‑agnostic model access Session‑aware agent execution Minimal setup for production agents Creating a Simple Agent (Python) from agent_framework.foundry import FoundryChatClient from azure.identity import AzureCliCredential client = FoundryChatClient( project_endpoint="https://your-foundry-service.services.ai.azure.com/api/projects/your-project", model="gpt-5.4-mini", credential=AzureCliCredential(), ) agent = client.as_agent( name="HelloAgent", instructions="You are a friendly assistant. Keep your answers brief.", ) result = await agent.run("What is the largest city in France?") print(result) The same agent abstraction applies across languages. When to Use Agents vs Workflows Microsoft provides clear guidance: Use an Agent when… Use a Workflow when… Task is open‑ended Steps are well‑defined Autonomous tool use is needed Execution order matters Single decision point Multiple agents/functions collaborate Key principle: If you can solve the task with deterministic code, do that instead of using an AI agent. 🔄 How It Differs from Other Frameworks Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0 distinguishes itself by focusing on "Enterprise Readiness" and "Interoperability." Feature Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0 Semantic Kernel / AutoGen LangChain / CrewAI Philosophy Unified, production-ready SDK. Research-focused or tool-specific. High-level, developer-friendly abstractions. Integration Deeply integrated with Microsoft Foundry and Azure. Varied; often requires more glue code. Generally cloud-agnostic. Interoperability Native A2A and MCP for cross-framework tasks. Limited to internal ecosystem. Uses proprietary connectors. Runtime Identical API parity for .NET and Python. Primarily Python-first (SK has C#). Primarily Python. Control Graph-based deterministic workflows. More non-deterministic/experimental. Mixture of role-based and agentic. 🛠️ Key Technical Components Agent Harness: The execution layer that provides agents with controlled access to the shell, file system, and messaging loops. Agent Skills: A portable, file-based or code-defined format for packaging domain expertise. Implementation Tip: If you are coming from Semantic Kernel, Microsoft provides migration assistants that analyze your existing code and generate step-by-step plans to upgrade to the new Agent Framework 1.0 standards. Microsoft Agent Framework Version 1.0 | Microsoft Agent Framework Agent Framework documentation 🎯 Summary Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0 is the "grown-up" version of AI orchestration. By standardizing the way agents talk to each other (A2A), discover tools (MCP), and process information (Middleware), Microsoft has provided a clear path for taking AI experiments into production. For more detailed guides, check out the official Microsoft Agent Framework DocumentationMicrosoft Agent Framework - .NET AI Community StandupFrom Demo to Production: Building Microsoft Foundry Hosted Agents with .NET
The Gap Between a Demo and a Production Agent Let's be honest. Getting an AI agent to work in a demo takes an afternoon. Getting it to work reliably in production, tested, containerised, deployed, observable, and maintainable by a team. is a different problem entirely. Most tutorials stop at the point where the agent prints a response in a terminal. They don't show you how to structure your code, cover your tools with tests, wire up CI, or deploy to a managed runtime with a proper lifecycle. That gap between prototype and production is where developer teams lose weeks. Microsoft Foundry Hosted Agents close that gap with a managed container runtime for your own custom agent code. And the Hosted Agents Workshop for .NET gives you a complete, copy-paste-friendly path through the entire journey. from local run to deployed agent to chat UI, in six structured labs using .NET 10. This post walks you through what the workshop delivers, what you will build, and why the patterns it teaches matter far beyond the workshop itself. What Is a Microsoft Foundry Hosted Agent? Microsoft Foundry supports two distinct agent types, and understanding the difference is the first decision you will make as an agent developer. Prompt agents are lightweight agents backed by a model deployment and a system prompt. No custom code required. Ideal for simple Q&A, summarisation, or chat scenarios where the model's built-in reasoning is sufficient. Hosted agents are container-based agents that run your own code .NET, Python, or any framework you choose inside Foundry's managed runtime. You control the logic, the tools, the data access, and the orchestration. When your scenario requires custom tool integrations, deterministic business logic, multi-step workflow orchestration, or private API access, a hosted agent is the right choice. The Foundry runtime handles the managed infrastructure; you own the code. For the official deployment reference, see Deploy a hosted agent to Foundry Agent Service on Microsoft Learn. What the Workshop Delivers The Hosted Agents Workshop for .NET is a beginner-friendly, hands-on workshop that takes you through the full development and deployment path for a real hosted agent. It is structured around a concrete scenario: a Hosted Agent Readiness Coach that helps delivery teams answer questions like: Should this use case start as a prompt agent or a hosted agent? What should a pilot launch checklist include? How should a team troubleshoot common early setup problems? The scenario is purposefully practical. It is not a toy chatbot. It is the kind of tool a real team would build and hand to other engineers, which means it needs to be testable, deployable, and extensible. The workshop covers: Local development and validation with .NET 10 Copilot-assisted coding with repo-specific instructions Deterministic tool implementation with xUnit test coverage CI pipeline validation with GitHub Actions Secure deployment to Azure Container Registry and Microsoft Foundry Chat UI integration using Blazor What You Will Build By the end of the workshop, you will have a code-based hosted agent that exposes an OpenAI Responses-compatible /responses endpoint on port 8088 . The agent is backed by three deterministic local tools, implemented in WorkshopLab.Core : RecommendImplementationShape — analyses a scenario and recommends hosted or prompt agent based on its requirements BuildLaunchChecklist — generates a pilot launch checklist for a given use case TroubleshootHostedAgent — returns structured troubleshooting guidance for common setup problems These tools are deterministic by design, no LLM call required to return a result. That choice makes them fast, predictable, and fully testable, which is the right architecture for business logic in a production agent. The end-to-end architecture looks like this: The Hands-On Journey: Lab by Lab The workshop follows a deliberate build → validate → ship progression. Each lab has a clear outcome. You do not move forward until the previous checkpoint passes. Lab 0 — Setup and Local Run Open the repo in VS Code or a GitHub Codespace, configure your Microsoft Foundry project endpoint and model deployment name, then run the agent locally. By the end of Lab 0, your agent is listening on http://localhost:8088/responses and responding to test requests. dotnet restore dotnet build dotnet run --project src/WorkshopLab.AgentHost Test it with a single PowerShell call: Invoke-RestMethod -Method Post ` -Uri "http://localhost:8088/responses" ` -ContentType "application/json" ` -Body '{"input":"Should we start with a hosted agent or a prompt agent?"}' Lab 0 instructions → Lab 1 — Copilot Customisation Configure repo-specific GitHub Copilot instructions so that Copilot understands the hosted-agent patterns used in this project. You will also add a Copilot review skill tailored to hosted agent code reviews. This step means every code suggestion you receive from Copilot is contextualised to the workshop scenario rather than giving generic .NET advice. Lab 1 instructions → Lab 2 — Tool Implementation Extend one of the deterministic tools in WorkshopLab.Core with a real feature change. The suggested change adds a stronger recommendation path to RecommendImplementationShape for scenarios that require all three hosted-agent strengths simultaneously. // In RecommendImplementationShape — add before the final return: if (requiresCode && requiresTools && requiresWorkflow) { return string.Join(Environment.NewLine, [ $"Recommended implementation: Hosted agent (full-stack)", $"Scenario goal: {goal}", "Why: the scenario requires custom code, external tool access, and " + "multi-step orchestration — all three hosted-agent strengths.", "Suggested next step: start with a code-based hosted agent, register " + "local tools for each integration, and add a workflow layer." ]); } You then write an xUnit test to cover it, run dotnet test , and validate the change against a live /responses call. This is the workshop's most important teaching moment: every tool change is covered by a test before it ships. Lab 2 instructions → Lab 3 — CI Validation Wire up a GitHub Actions workflow that builds the solution, runs the test suite, and validates that the agent container builds cleanly. No manual steps — if a change breaks the build or a test, CI catches it before any deployment happens. Lab 3 instructions → Lab 4 — Deployment to Microsoft Foundry Use the Azure Developer CLI ( azd ) to provision an Azure Container Registry, publish the agent image, and deploy the hosted agent to Microsoft Foundry. The workshop separates provisioning from deployment deliberately: azd owns the Azure resources; the Foundry control plane deployment is an explicit, intentional final step that depends on your real project endpoint and agent.yaml manifest values. Lab 4 instructions → Lab 5 — Chat UI Integration Connect a Blazor chat UI to the deployed hosted agent and validate end-to-end responses. By the end of Lab 5, you have a fully functioning agent accessible through a real UI, calling your deterministic tools via the Foundry control plane. Lab 5 instructions → Key Concepts to Take Away The workshop teaches concrete patterns that apply well beyond this specific scenario. Code-first agent design Prompt-only agents are fast to build but hard to test and reason about at scale. A hosted agent with code-backed tools gives you something you can unit test, refactor, and version-control like any other software. Deterministic tools and testability The workshop explicitly avoids LLM calls inside tool implementations. Deterministic tools return predictable outputs for a given input, which means you can write fast, reliable unit tests for them. This is the right pattern for business logic. Reserve LLM calls for the reasoning layer, not the execution layer. CI/CD for agent systems AI agents are software. They deserve the same build-test-deploy discipline as any other service. Lab 3 makes this concrete: you cannot ship without passing CI, and CI validates the container as well as the unit tests. Deployment separation The workshop's split between azd provisioning and Foundry control-plane deployment is not arbitrary. It reflects the real operational boundary: your Azure resources are long-lived infrastructure; your agent deployment is a lifecycle event tied to your project's specific endpoint and manifest. Keeping them separate reduces accidents and makes rollbacks easier. Observability and the validation mindset Every lab ends with an explicit checkpoint. The culture the workshop builds is: prove it works before moving on. That mindset is more valuable than any specific tool or command in the labs. Why Hosted Agents Are Worth the Investment The managed runtime in Microsoft Foundry removes the infrastructure overhead that makes custom agent deployment painful. You do not manage Kubernetes clusters, configure ingress rules, or handle TLS termination. Foundry handles the hosting; you handle the code. This matters most for teams making the transition from demo to production. A prompt agent is an afternoon's work. A hosted agent with proper CI, tested tools, and a deployment pipeline is a week's work done properly once, instead of several weeks of firefighting done poorly repeatedly. The Foundry agent lifecycle —> create, update, version, deploy —>also gives you the controls you need to manage agents in a real environment: staged rollouts, rollback capability, and clear separation between agent versions. For the full deployment guide, see Deploy a hosted agent to Foundry Agent Service. From Workshop to Real Project This workshop is not just a learning exercise. The repository structure, the tooling choices, and the CI/CD patterns are a reference implementation. The patterns you can lift directly into a production project include: The WorkshopLab.Core / WorkshopLab.AgentHost separation between business logic and agent hosting The agent.yaml manifest pattern for declarative Foundry deployment The GitHub Actions workflow structure for build, test, and container validation The azd + ACR pattern for image publishing without requiring Docker Desktop locally The Blazor chat UI as a starting point for internal tooling or developer-facing applications The scenario, a readiness coach for hosted agents. This is also something teams evaluating Microsoft Foundry will find genuinely useful. It answers exactly the questions that come up when onboarding a new team to the platform. Common Mistakes When Building Hosted Agents Having run workshops and spoken with developer teams building on Foundry, a few patterns come up repeatedly: Skipping local validation before containerising. Always validate the /responses endpoint locally first. Debugging inside a container is slower and harder than debugging locally. Putting business logic inside the LLM call. If the answer to a user query can be determined by code, use code. Reserve the model for reasoning, synthesis, and natural language output. Treating CI as optional. Agent code changes break things just like any other code change. If you do not have CI catching regressions, you will ship them. Conflating provisioning and deployment. Recreating Azure resources on every deploy is slow and error-prone. Provision once with azd ; deploy agent versions as needed through the Foundry control plane. Not having a rollback plan. The Foundry agent lifecycle supports versioning. Use it. Know how to roll back to a previous version before you deploy to production. Get Started The workshop is open source, beginner-friendly, and designed to be completed in a single day. You need a .NET 10 SDK, an Azure subscription, access to a Microsoft Foundry project, and a GitHub account. Clone the repository, follow the labs in order, and by the end you will have a production-ready reference implementation that your team can extend and adapt for real scenarios. Clone the workshop repository → Here is the quick start to prove the solution works locally before you begin the full lab sequence: git clone https://github.com/microsoft/Hosted_Agents_Workshop_dotNET.git cd Hosted_Agents_Workshop_dotNET # Set your Foundry project endpoint and model deployment $env:AZURE_AI_PROJECT_ENDPOINT = "https://<resource>.services.ai.azure.com/api/projects/<project>" $env:MODEL_DEPLOYMENT_NAME = "gpt-4.1-mini" # Build and run dotnet restore dotnet build dotnet run --project src/WorkshopLab.AgentHost Then send your first request: Invoke-RestMethod -Method Post ` -Uri "http://localhost:8088/responses" ` -ContentType "application/json" ` -Body '{"input":"Should we start with a hosted agent or a prompt agent?"}' When the agent answers as a Hosted Agent Readiness Coach, you are ready to begin the labs. Key Takeaways Hosted agents in Microsoft Foundry let you run custom .NET code in a managed container runtime — you own the logic, Foundry owns the infrastructure. Deterministic tools are the right pattern for business logic in production agents: fast, testable, and predictable. CI/CD is not optional for agent systems. Build it in from the start, not as an afterthought. Separate your provisioning ( azd ) from your deployment (Foundry control plane) — it reduces accidents and simplifies rollbacks. The workshop is a reference implementation, not just a tutorial. The patterns are production-grade and ready to adapt. References Hosted Agents Workshop for .NET — GitHub Repository Workshop Lab Guide Deploy a Hosted Agent to Foundry Agent Service — Microsoft Learn Microsoft Foundry Portal Azure Developer CLI (azd) — Microsoft Learn .NET 10 SDK DownloadIf You're Building AI on Azure, ECS 2026 is Where You Need to Be
Let me be direct: there's a lot of noise in the conference calendar. Generic cloud events. Vendor showcases dressed up as technical content. Sessions that look great on paper but leave you with nothing you can actually ship on Monday. ECS 2026 isn't that. As someone who will be on stage at Cologne this May, I can tell you the European Collaboration Summit combined with the European AI & Cloud Summit and European Biz Apps Summit is one of the few events I've seen where engineers leave with real, production-applicable knowledge. Three days. Three summits. 3,000+ attendees. One of the largest Microsoft-focused events in Europe, and it keeps getting better. If you're building AI systems on Azure, designing cloud-native architectures, or trying to figure out how to take your AI experiments to production — this is where the conversation is happening. What ECS 2026 Actually Is ECS 2026 runs May 5–7 at Confex in Cologne, Germany. It brings together three co-located summits under one roof: European Collaboration Summit — Microsoft 365, Teams, Copilot, and governance European AI & Cloud Summit — Azure architecture, AI agents, cloud security, responsible AI European BizApps Summit — Power Platform, Microsoft Fabric, Dynamics For Azure engineers and AI developers, the European AI & Cloud Summit is your primary destination. But don't ignore the overlap, some of the most interesting AI conversations happen at the intersection of collaboration tooling and cloud infrastructure. The scale matters here: 3,000+ attendees, 100+ sessions, multiple deep-dive tracks, and a speaker lineup that includes Microsoft executives, Regional Directors, and MVPs who have built, broken, and rebuilt production systems. The Azure + AI Track - What's Actually On the Agenda The AI & Cloud Summit agenda is built around real technical depth. Not "intro to AI" content, actual architecture decisions, patterns that work, and lessons from things that didn't. Here's what you can expect: AI Agents and Agentic Systems This is where the energy is right now, and ECS is leaning in. Expect sessions covering how to design agent workflows, chain reasoning steps, handle memory and state, and integrate with Azure AI services. Marco Casalaina, VP of Products for Azure AI at Microsoft, is speaking if you want to understand the direction of the Azure AI platform from the people building it, this is a direct line. Azure Architecture at Scale Cloud-native patterns, microservices, containers, and the architectural decisions that determine whether your system holds up under real load. These sessions go beyond theory you'll hear from engineers who've shipped these designs at enterprise scale. Observability, DevOps, and Production AI Getting AI to production is harder than the demos suggest. Sessions here cover monitoring AI systems, integrating LLMs into CI/CD pipelines, and building the operational practices that keep AI in production reliable and governable. Cloud Security and Compliance Security isn't optional when you're putting AI in front of users or connecting it to enterprise data. Tracks cover identity, access patterns, responsible AI governance, and how to design systems that satisfy compliance requirements without becoming unmaintainable. Pre-Conference Deep Dives One underrated part of ECS: the pre-conference workshops. These are extended, hands-on sessions typically 3–6 hours that let you go deep on a single topic with an expert. Think of them as intensive short courses where you can actually work through the material, not just watch slides. If you're newer to a particular area of Azure AI, or you want to build fluency in a specific pattern before the main conference sessions, these are worth the early travel. The Speaker Quality Is Different Here The ECS speaker roster includes Microsoft executives, Microsoft MVPs, and Regional Directors, people who have real accountability for the products and patterns they're presenting. You'll hear from over 20 Microsoft speakers: Marco Casalaina — VP of Products, Azure AI at Microsoft Adam Harmetz — VP of Product at Microsoft, Enterprise Agent And dozens of MVPs and Regional Directors who are in the field every day, solving the same problems you are. These aren't keynote-only speakers — they're in the session rooms, at the hallway track, available for real conversations. The Hallway Track Is Not a Cliché I know "networking" sounds like a corporate afterthought. At ECS it genuinely isn't. When you put 3,000 practitioners, engineers, architects, DevOps leads, security specialists in one venue for three days, the conversations between sessions are often more valuable than the sessions themselves. You get candid answers to "how are you actually handling X in production?" that you won't find in documentation. The European Microsoft community is tight-knit and collaborative. ECS is where that community concentrates. Why This Matters Right Now We're in a period where AI development is moving fast but the engineering discipline around it is still maturing. Most teams are figuring out: How to move from AI prototype to production system How to instrument and observe AI behaviour reliably How to design agent systems that don't become unmaintainable How to satisfy security and compliance requirements in AI-integrated architectures ECS 2026 is one of the few places where you can get direct answers to these questions from people who've solved them — not theoretically, but in production, on Azure, in the last 12 months. If you go, you'll come back with practical patterns you can apply immediately. That's the bar I hold events to. ECS consistently clears it. Register and Explore the Agenda Register for ECS 2026: ecs.events Explore the AI & Cloud Summit agenda: cloudsummit.eu/en/agenda Dates: May 5–7, 2026 | Location: Confex, Cologne, Germany Early registration is worth it the pre-conference workshops fill up. And if you're coming, find me, I'll be the one talking too much about AI agents and Azure deployments. See you in Cologne.
Building an Enterprise HR Chatbot with Multi-Strategy RAG and Live Agent Handoff on Azure
HR teams deal with thousands of employee questions every day — policy lookups, leave balances, case escalations, and sensitive topics like harassment or misconduct. AI chatbots can handle the routine stuff and free up HR advisors for the hard cases. But most chatbot projects get stuck at basic Q&A. They can't handle multi-country policies, employee slang, or smooth handoffs to a real person. This post covers how we built Eva, a production HR chatbot using Microsoft Bot Framework and Semantic Kernel on Azure. I'll focus on three problems and how we solved them: Getting accurate answers when employees and policy documents use different words Handing off to a live human advisor in real time Catching answer quality regressions automatically Why basic RAG isn't enough for HR Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) — fetching relevant documents and feeding them to an LLM — is the standard approach. But plain RAG breaks down in HR for a few reasons: Vocabulary mismatch. An employee asks "How does misconduct affect my ACB?" but the policy document says "Annual Cash Bonus eligibility criteria." The search doesn't connect the two. Multi-country ambiguity. The same question can have different answers depending on the employee's country, grade, or role. Sensitive topics. Questions about harassment, disability, or whistleblowing should go to a human, not get an AI-generated answer. Ranking noise. Search results often include globally relevant but locally irrelevant documents. Eva handles these with a layered pipeline: query augmentation → multi-index search → LLM reranking → answer generation → citation handling. Architecture at a glance Layer Technology Bot framework Microsoft Agents SDK (aiohttp) LLM orchestration Semantic Kernel Primary LLM Azure OpenAI Service (GPT-4.1 / GPT-4o) Knowledge search Azure AI Search (hybrid + vector) Live agent chat Salesforce MIAW via server-sent events Evaluation Azure AI Evaluation SDK + custom LLM judge Config Pydantic-settings + Azure App Configuration + Key Vault Four retrieval strategies, controlled by feature flags Instead of one search approach, Eva supports four — toggled by feature flags so we can A/B test per country without code changes. They run in a priority cascade: HyDE (Hypothetical Document Embeddings) Instead of searching with the employee's question, the LLM first generates a hypothetical policy document thatwouldanswer it. We embed that synthetic document and use it as the search query. Since a hypothetical answer is closer in embedding space to the real answer than the original question is, this bridges vocabulary gaps effectively. Step-back prompting The LLM broadens the question. "How does misconduct affect my ACB?" becomes "What is the Annual Cash Bonus policy and what factors affect eligibility?" This works well when answers live in broader policy sections. Query rewrite The LLM expands abbreviations and adds HR domain context, then runs a hybrid (text + vector) search. Standard search (fallback) Basic intent classification with hybrid search. No augmentation. All four strategies return the same Pydantic model, so the rest of the pipeline doesn't care which one ran. The team can enable HyDE globally, roll out step-back to specific countries, or revert instantly if something underperforms. LLM reranking After pulling results from both a country-specific index and a global index, Eva optionally reranks them using a RankGPT-style approach — the LLM scores document relevance with a bias toward local content. If reranking fails for any reason, it falls back to the original ordering so the pipeline keeps moving. Answer generation with local vs. global context The answer stage separates retrieved documents into local context (country-specific) and global context (company-wide), injected as distinct prompt sections. The LLM returns a structured response with reasoning, the actual answer, citations, and a coverage classification (full, partial, or denial). Prompts are stored as version-controlled .txt files with per-model variants (e.g., gpt-4o.txt, gpt-4.1.txt), resolved at runtime. This makes prompts reviewable in PRs and deployable without code changes. Live agent handoff with Salesforce When Eva determines a question needs a human — sensitive topic, complex case, or the employee simply asks — it hands off to a Salesforce advisor in real time. SSE streaming. Eva keeps a persistent HTTP connection to Salesforce for real-time messages, typing indicators, and session end signals. Session resilience. Session state persists across three layers — in-memory cache, Azure Cosmos DB, and Bot Framework turn state — to survive restarts and failovers. Message delivery workers. Each session has a dedicated async worker with exponential backoff retry. Overflow messages go to a failed messages list rather than being silently dropped. Queue position updates. While employees wait, Eva queries Salesforce for queue position and sends rate-limited updates. Context handoff. On session start, Eva sends the full conversation transcript so advisors don't ask employees to repeat themselves. Automated evaluation Eva includes an evaluation framework that runs as a separate process, testing against ground-truth Q&A pairs from CSV files. Factual questions are scored using Azure AI's SimilarityEvaluator on a 1–5 scale, with optional relevance and groundedness checks. Sensitive questions (harassment, disability, whistleblowing) use a custom LLM judge that checks whether the response acknowledges sensitivity and directs the employee to create a case or speak with an advisor. A deviation detector flags score drops between runs. SQLite stores results for trending, and Application Insights powers dashboards. Long evaluation runs support resume — the framework skips already-completed test cases on restart. Key takeaways Make retrieval strategies swappable. Feature flags let you A/B test without redeploying. Separate local and global knowledge explicitly. Don't rely on the LLM to figure out which country's policy applies. Invest in evaluation early. Ground-truth datasets with factual and behavioral scoring catch regressions that manual testing misses. Build resilience into live agent handoff. Multi-tier session recovery and retry logic prevent dropped conversations. Treat prompts as code. File-based, model-variant-aware prompts are easier to maintain than inline strings. Use Pydantic for structured LLM outputs. Typed models catch bad output at the validation boundary instead of letting it propagate. Get started Semantic Kernel documentation — LLM orchestration with plugins and structured outputs Azure OpenAI Service quickstart — Deploy GPT-4o or GPT-4.1 Azure AI Search vector search tutorial — Hybrid and vector search indices Microsoft Bot Framework SDK — Build bots for Teams and web Azure AI Evaluation SDK — Score for similarity, relevance, and groundedness
