Tom Hundley
🤖 Ghostwritten by Claude Opus 4.8 · Fact-checked & edited by GPT 5.5
Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0 changes the build-or-buy discussion for multi-agent systems. It is not just another orchestration library. The 1.0 release gives Python and .NET teams stable APIs, multi-provider model support, A2A and MCP interoperability, OpenTelemetry observability, reusable Skills, function approval UI, and frontend streaming adapters.
That package would save meaningful engineering work for teams that need enterprise-grade agent orchestration without building every control plane primitive themselves. It also consolidates two important Microsoft lineages: Semantic Kernel and AutoGen. In practice, that means AutoGen's research patterns are being productized with stronger durability and operational controls.
The stronger conclusion is not that every team should switch. It is that Agent Framework 1.0 sets a higher baseline for what a serious agent platform should provide. A custom crew still makes sense when the organization needs tight ownership of routing decisions, approval boundaries, domain-specific agent behavior, and infrastructure choices. But the burden of proof has moved: DIY now has to beat a credible 1.0 platform, not a loose collection of demos.
TL;DR: Agent Framework 1.0 is a credible enterprise agent platform with stable Python and .NET APIs, multi-provider model support, interoperability, observability, Skills, approval controls, and streaming adapters.
The 1.0 release matters because it packages the production concerns that many agent teams otherwise rebuild by hand. Stable APIs for Python and .NET reduce migration risk. Multi-provider model support keeps teams from hard-coding one model vendor into every workflow. A2A and MCP support give the framework a standards-based way to interact with outside agents and tools.
The observability story is especially important. Agent systems are hard to debug because failures often happen across routing, model calls, tool calls, memory retrieval, and human approval boundaries. Built-in OpenTelemetry support gives teams a common way to trace those interactions instead of stitching together one-off logs per agent.
Skills are the other major packaging improvement. Rather than copy the same tool wrapper or domain capability into multiple agents, a team can define a reusable capability and attach it where needed. That shifts reuse from convention to contract.
Agent Framework 1.0 also includes a function approval UI and frontend streaming adapters. Those two features address different ends of the user experience: human-in-the-loop control before sensitive actions execute, and responsive interfaces while long-running agent work is still in progress.
TL;DR: A managed framework wins when the expensive parts are observability, interoperability, reusable capability packaging, approval UX, and operational consistency.
The case for buying or adopting a framework is strongest around platform plumbing. Most teams do not create business value by reinventing trace propagation, approval screens, model-provider adapters, or packaging conventions. They create value by putting domain-specific intelligence behind those primitives.
Agent Framework 1.0 would save work in four areas.
First, observability. OpenTelemetry support gives agent runs a production-friendly trace model. That matters when a task crosses multiple agents, tools, and human checkpoints.
Second, interoperability. A2A and MCP support reduce the cost of connecting agents and tools across framework boundaries. In a mixed ecosystem, that is not a nice-to-have. It is the difference between a composable platform and an isolated runtime.
Third, capability reuse. Skills make reusable behavior easier to version, distribute, and reason about. A shared package can provide reuse, but Skills provide a more explicit agent-facing abstraction.
Fourth, approval and streaming UX. Function approval UI and frontend streaming adapters move common application concerns into the framework layer. That is valuable for teams that want agent workflows to feel like products, not background jobs.
Fleet-management research points in the same direction: centralized orchestration and distributed task queues are the dominant patterns for multi-agent deployments. A strong framework standardizes those patterns so teams can spend less time designing the control plane from scratch.
TL;DR: DIY still wins when the differentiator is control over routing policy, approval gates, domain behavior, and infrastructure boundaries.
A custom agent crew remains defensible when the architecture itself is part of the product. Agent Framework's handoff-oriented patterns are useful, but they do not automatically replace a gateway-owned routing design.
In a gateway-first design such as OpenClaw, the gateway is the control point. It classifies work, selects the specialist path, applies policy, and determines whether a human approval gate is required before execution continues.
// Gateway-owned manager to specialist routing
const route = manager.classify(request);
const specialist = crew.resolve(route.specialist);
await gateway.handoff(request, specialist, {
approvalGate: route.confidence < CONFIDENCE.REQUIRED,
idempotencyKey: request.id,
});That placement matters. If the workflow graph owns the handoff, routing becomes part of the agent runtime. If the gateway owns the handoff, routing remains part of the platform boundary. The latter is easier to audit when approvals, escalation, and retry behavior need to be consistent across the fleet.
Agent engineering best practices reinforce that choice. Confidence-based escalation, idempotent retries, hierarchical memory, and continuous evaluation all depend on disciplined boundaries. Some of those practices map naturally to gateway-owned approval gates and OpenClaw-style routing. The design question is not whether a framework can support those ideas. It is whether the organization wants those controls embedded in a framework workflow or owned explicitly at the platform edge.
That is the strongest DIY argument: not novelty, not preference, and not framework skepticism. It is control over the policy surface where mistakes are most expensive.
TL;DR: Even teams that stay DIY should borrow the framework's defaults for observability, interoperability, Skills-style packaging, approval UX, and continuous evaluation.
The right response to a strong 1.0 release is not dismissal. It is selective adoption of the ideas that raise the internal standard.
The first borrowing target is middleware-style observability. Agent tracing should not be a per-agent chore. Routing decisions, model calls, tool calls, approval pauses, retries, and final outputs should emit consistent telemetry by default.
The second is Skills-style packaging. A shared library is useful, but it can become informal over time. A formal capability contract makes agent behavior easier to version and test. It also clarifies which agent can use which capability, under what policy, and with which approval requirements.
The third is standards-based interoperability. A2A and MCP support should be treated as architectural pressure, not just vendor checklist items. Agent platforms increasingly need to call outside tools and cooperate with outside agents. Custom systems that ignore those standards will become harder to integrate.
The fourth is continuous evaluation. Production agent systems need routine measurement of routing quality, escalation accuracy, tool success, and retry behavior. Without evaluation, agent architecture becomes anecdotal. With evaluation, build-or-buy decisions can be made against evidence.
TL;DR: Agent Framework 1.0 is production-ready, but build-or-buy still depends on control requirements, integration needs, and where the team wants policy decisions to live.
Yes. Agent Framework reached 1.0 for Python and .NET with stable APIs, multi-provider model support, A2A and MCP interoperability, OpenTelemetry observability, reusable Skills, function approval UI, and frontend streaming adapters.
The consolidation brings two strands together: Semantic Kernel's application-development lineage and AutoGen's multi-agent research patterns. The result is a more productized framework that carries research ideas such as agent collaboration and handoff into an enterprise-oriented runtime with durability controls.
Use the framework when the priority is accelerating production readiness: tracing, interoperability, reusable Skills, approval UX, streaming adapters, and multi-provider support. A framework is especially attractive when the team does not need to own every detail of routing and policy enforcement.
DIY makes sense when routing, approval boundaries, escalation policy, memory design, or infrastructure control are central requirements. In those cases, the orchestration layer is not commodity plumbing. It is part of the system's risk model and operating model.
Both approaches move work from a general routing layer to a more specialized executor. The difference is ownership. OpenClaw-style routing keeps the decision at the gateway boundary, while framework handoff patterns place more of that decision inside the agent workflow.
TL;DR: Agent Framework 1.0 raises the baseline for agent orchestration, while DIY remains justified when platform control is the core requirement.
TL;DR: The practical answer is not build or buy in the abstract; it is whether the framework's defaults strengthen or weaken the controls that matter most.
Agent Framework 1.0 is a serious release. It gives agent teams a production-oriented baseline for observability, interoperability, reusable capabilities, approval workflows, and frontend streaming. For many organizations, that is exactly the right trade: adopt the framework, avoid rebuilding the control plane, and focus engineering effort on domain-specific agent behavior.
A custom crew still has a place. When routing policy, approval gates, escalation logic, and evaluation loops need to sit at the platform boundary, DIY can be the more disciplined architecture. The key is honesty. A custom system should not exist because a team underestimated the framework. It should exist because the team can name the control properties it needs and is willing to own the operational cost.
The most useful thing about Agent Framework 1.0 is that it makes those trade-offs explicit. It raises the standard for everyone, including teams that decide not to adopt it.
Discover more content: