Dotnet-skills dotnet-aspire

Build, upgrade, and operate .NET Aspire 13.2.x application hosts with current CLI, AppHost, ServiceDefaults, integrations, dashboard, testing, and Azure deployment patterns for distributed apps.

install

source · Clone the upstream repo

git clone https://github.com/managedcode/dotnet-skills

Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/

T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/managedcode/dotnet-skills "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/catalog/Frameworks/Aspire/skills/dotnet-aspire" ~/.claude/skills/managedcode-dotnet-skills-dotnet-aspire && rm -rf "$T"

manifest: catalog/Frameworks/Aspire/skills/dotnet-aspire/SKILL.md

source content

.NET Aspire

Trigger On

Aspire.AppHost.Sdk

Aspire.Hosting.*

DistributedApplication.CreateBuilder

WithReference

WaitFor

AddProject

AddRedis

AddPostgres

aspire run

aspire init

aspire add

, or

aspire update

Aspire.Hosting.Testing

DistributedApplicationTestingBuilder

, or a test harness that mixes an Aspire AppHost with

WebApplicationFactory

orchestrating multiple services and resources with an AppHost for local development or cloud deployment
setting up
```
ServiceDefaults
```
, service discovery, OpenTelemetry, health checks, or the Aspire Dashboard
choosing between official first-party Aspire integrations and
```
CommunityToolkit/Aspire
```
upgrading older 8.x or 9.x Aspire solutions to the current CLI and AppHost SDK model
wiring polyglot services into an Aspire topology, especially when Go, Java, Python, or extra dev-time tools enter the picture

Workflow

Classify the task first: new AppHost creation, existing-solution enlistment, integration wiring, testing and observability, deployment, or version upgrade.
Prefer the current Aspire toolchain. For greenfield or modernized work, use the Aspire CLI and current AppHost SDK instead of writing new guidance around the deprecated legacy workload.
Treat 13.2.x releases as servicing and feature updates for the current CLI-first app model, not a topology rewrite. Keep the Aspire CLI,
```
Aspire.AppHost.Sdk
```
, and closely coupled hosting or testing packages on the same line, then rerun the AppHost and deployment checks after
```
aspire update
```
.
Keep the AppHost code-first and topology-focused. Model services, resources, dependencies, endpoints, lifetimes, and parameters there; keep business logic out.
Keep
```
ServiceDefaults
```
narrow. It exists for telemetry, health checks, resilience, and service discovery, not shared domain models or general utility code.
Prefer official first-party Aspire integrations when they cover the requirement. Use
```
CommunityToolkit/Aspire
```
only when the capability gap is real: unsupported language hosts, extra dev infrastructure, or extension packages the official project does not provide.
Validate the whole distributed system, not one project in isolation. Local success means the AppHost starts cleanly, dependencies resolve through
```
WithReference
```
, the dashboard shows the expected resource graph, and end-to-end tests can exercise the topology.
For integration tests, keep one shared AppHost fixture per test session. Use
```
Aspire.Hosting.Testing
```
to boot the distributed app, create
```
HttpClient
```
or SignalR clients from the AppHost, and layer
```
WebApplicationFactory
```
on top only when tests need direct Host DI, grains, or runtime services.
When publishing, switch from local containers or emulators to managed resources deliberately and verify which services truly need external endpoints.

Architecture

flowchart LR
  A["Distributed-app task"] --> B{"Need code-first orchestration?"}
  B -->|No| C["Stay in service-level skills such as ASP.NET Core, Worker, or Orleans"]
  B -->|Yes| D["Create or update the AppHost"]
  D --> E["Model resources and services with `WithReference` and `WaitFor`"]
  E --> F{"Official Aspire integration exists?"}
  F -->|Yes| G["Use first-party Aspire integration"]
  F -->|No or gap remains| H["Evaluate `CommunityToolkit/Aspire`"]
  G --> I["Apply `ServiceDefaults`, dashboard, and tests"]
  H --> I
  I --> J{"Publishing now?"}
  J -->|No| K["Run locally with `aspire run` or the AppHost project"]
  J -->|Yes| L["Choose `azd`, App Service, or the CLI deploy/publish pipeline"]

Current Guidance

AppHost shape: prefer current SDK-style AppHost projects using
```
Aspire.AppHost.Sdk/<version>
```
or a file-based AppHost when that repo intentionally uses the single-file model. Recognize both as valid current patterns.
CLI entry points: use
```
aspire new
```
for starter projects,
```
aspire init
```
to add Aspire support to an existing solution or create a single-file AppHost,
```
aspire add
```
to add integrations or starter pieces,
```
aspire run
```
for local orchestration,
```
aspire start
```
/
```
aspire stop
```
/
```
aspire ps
```
for detached lifecycle management,
```
aspire describe
```
for live resource inspection,
```
aspire doctor
```
for environment diagnostics,
```
aspire secret
```
for user secrets,
```
aspire docs
```
for terminal documentation lookup,
```
aspire agent
```
for AI agent integration,
```
aspire deploy
```
for the current CLI deploy pipeline,
```
aspire restore
```
for AppHost and TypeScript resource refresh, and
```
aspire update
```
for version-aware upgrades.
```
aspire publish
```
still exists for explicit artifact-generation flows and remains preview-sensitive.
Patch posture: Aspire
```
13.2.2
```
is the current baseline release in the 13.2 line. Treat it as a current CLI and AppHost refresh, not a new topology model; align package versions, rerun
```
aspire update
```
, then revalidate local orchestration and the chosen deployment path.
App model wiring: use
```
WithReference(...)
```
for dependency and configuration flow, and
```
WaitFor(...)
```
for startup ordering. Use
```
WithExternalHttpEndpoints()
```
only when the resource truly needs an externally reachable endpoint for the chosen runtime or publish target.
ServiceDefaults boundaries:
```
AddServiceDefaults()
```
should stay focused on OpenTelemetry, health endpoints, service discovery,
```
HttpClient
```
resilience, and related cross-cutting infrastructure.
Testing model: prefer Aspire closed-box testing when you need to run the distributed application as a system. Use
```
DistributedApplicationTestingBuilder
```
plus a shared fixture for AppHost lifecycle,
```
App.CreateHttpClient(...)
```
for resource-bound clients, and a
```
WebApplicationFactory<TEntryPoint>
```
wrapper only when the test must resolve DI services or in-process runtime state from the hosted app. For UI flows, initialize Playwright once in the shared fixture, create a fresh browser context per test, and capture failure artifacts.
Dashboard usage: treat the Aspire Dashboard as the development observability surface. It is valuable in AppHost runs and standalone OTLP scenarios, but it is not a production monitoring replacement.
Upgrade posture: older 8.x or 9.x solutions need explicit migration work. Current guidance favors the Aspire CLI upgrade path and the newer AppHost SDK structure on
```
.NET 10
```
.

Selection Rules

Use first-party Aspire when the package and docs exist for the resource or platform, especially for core .NET, Azure, cache, database, messaging, Microsoft Foundry, and standard local-container flows.
Use
```
CommunityToolkit/Aspire
```
when you need polyglot app hosts beyond official coverage, extra dev-time tools around a resource, or community-maintained integrations such as SQLite, Java, Go, PowerShell, k6, MailPit, MinIO, or Meilisearch.
Prefer the smallest surface that solves the problem. Do not add a broad toolkit extension pack when an existing first-party integration plus a normal library already fits.
Treat toolkit packages as community-supported. Verify maturity, maintenance, external container images, and security or licensing assumptions before making them part of a production baseline.

Official Sources

Anti-Patterns

hardcoding service URLs or connection strings instead of using
```
WithReference
```
putting business logic, data migrations, or large configuration transforms inside the AppHost
turning
```
ServiceDefaults
```
into a dumping ground for shared models or helpers
adding external HTTP endpoints everywhere instead of only where runtime or publish needs them
defaulting to
```
CommunityToolkit/Aspire
```
when first-party Aspire already covers the requirement
assuming the dashboard or local containers automatically mean production readiness
treating Aspire tests as a mocking framework; they run the application as a real distributed system

Deliver

a version-aware Aspire architecture or upgrade direction
the right AppHost, ServiceDefaults, integration, and CLI workflow
an explicit first-party versus
```
CommunityToolkit/Aspire
```
package decision
an end-to-end validation path for local orchestration, testing, and deployment

Validate

the AppHost starts cleanly via
```
aspire run
```
or the AppHost project
resources and projects are modeled with explicit
```
WithReference
```
and
```
WaitFor
```
relationships where needed
consuming apps resolve endpoints and connection strings without hardcoded values
```
ServiceDefaults
```
contains only cross-cutting infrastructure concerns
dashboard, health checks, logs, and traces reflect the expected resource graph
Aspire-backed integration tests reuse a shared AppHost fixture instead of booting the distributed app inside each test
any
```
WebApplicationFactory
```
layer reuses connection strings and endpoints from the AppHost instead of duplicating local config
testing and deployment guidance matches the chosen runtime: local AppHost, standalone dashboard, ACA/App Service, or the CLI deploy/publish pipeline

References

patterns.md - Current CLI-first setup flows, AppHost patterns,
```
ServiceDefaults
```
, testing, and upgrade checkpoints
testing.md - Shared AppHost fixtures,
```
DistributedApplicationTestingBuilder
```
,
```
WebApplicationFactory
```
integration, Playwright bootstrapping, and diagnostics
deployment.md - ACA, App Service, publish-mode, and manifest-oriented deployment guidance
community-toolkit.md - Practical guide to
```
CommunityToolkit/Aspire
```
packages, capability gaps, and selection rules