Series note: This post is part of my AI ABAP development series, where I go from AI development in general, to ABAP-specific problems, and then to ARC-1. In the previous post, I wrote about running ARC-1 on SAP BTP. That was the architecture part: central deployment, XSUAA, destinations, Cloud Connector, Principal Propagation, roles, and auditability. This post is the next step. If ARC-1 is already deployed centrally on BTP, then it does not have to be used only from developer tools like VS Code, Claude, Cursor, or Eclipse. It can also be used from Microsoft Copilot Studio and then published into Teams or Microsoft 365 Copilot. That changes the audience quite a bit. ...

Series note: This post is part of my AI ABAP development series, where I go from AI development in general, to ABAP-specific problems, and then to ARC-1. In the previous post, I introduced ARC-1 as a secure ADT MCP gateway for ABAP systems. The main point was not only that ARC-1 can expose ABAP development functionality to AI clients. The main point was that this access needs a place in the architecture. This post is about that place. If ARC-1 should not run uncontrolled on every developer laptop, then SAP BTP is the most natural enterprise option for me. Not because BTP makes the problem disappear, but because it already has the pieces you need for this kind of setup: XSUAA, destinations, Cloud Connector, role collections, audit logging, and the normal BTP operating model. ...

Series note: This post is part of my AI ABAP development series, where I go from AI development in general, to ABAP-specific problems, and then to ARC-1. In the first post of this series, I wrote about context and how I use AI in development. In the previous post, I then moved that discussion into ABAP and ended more or less with one question: what would an ADT MCP setup need to look like if you take control, identity, and security seriously from the beginning? ...

Series note: This post is part of my AI ABAP development series, where I go from AI development in general, to ABAP-specific problems, and then to ARC-1. In the first post of this series, I wrote more generally about how I use AI today, why context matters so much, and why I am still not fully convinced by the more maximalist agentic hype. Here I want to get more concrete. Because SAP development is not one thing, and that matters a lot for AI. ...

Series note: This post is part of my AI ABAP development series, where I go from AI development in general, to ABAP-specific problems, and then to ARC-1. When it comes to AI, I do not really think about magic. I think more about another colleague helping me out. Sometimes that means architecture. Sometimes implementation. Sometimes testing, review, CI/CD, or deployment. But this only works with trust, and trust needs communication. If I do not know something, I ask. If code looks strange, I ask. If tests fail, I ask. ...

If you work with SAP Fiori Elements, you have probably run into this problem before: it is hard to see in which UI5 version a specific feature was introduced. Bjorn Schulz already built a strong matrix for ABAP: ABAP Feature Matrix. For Fiori Elements and RAP/CAP, there was no comparable matrix yet. So I created an Influence request to close this gap: influence.sap.com/sap/ino/#idea/351729 The new Developer Portal would be a great home for a matrix like this but so far, there still is no official version. The closest alternative is the SAP Fiori Elements Feature Map in the SAPUI5 documentation. ...

If you are searching for SAP MCP Servers (Model Context Protocol), you quickly run into the same problem: Which SAP MCP servers exist (official and community), and what other SAP AI tooling should you know about? That is why I like this new repo: marianfoo/sap-ai-mcp-servers: SAP MCP Servers and SAP AI Skills list It is a curated list of SAP MCP servers, SAP AI skills, and adjacent developer tools. The README is structured as tables so you can scan by category, compare licenses, and see what is actively maintained. ...

Previous post (code generation benchmark): Benchmarking LLMs for ABAP Live benchmark results (old + new): abap-llm-benchmark.marianzeis.de In my first evaluation (based on the TH Köln benchmark paper), I extended the original setup with additional models and focused on a very concrete question: how well can LLMs generate ABAP code that actually compiles and passes ABAP Unit tests? I also tested SAP’s model ABAP-1, and it performed very poorly for code generation. To be fair: SAP also states this in the documentation. ABAP-1 is primarily meant for explaining ABAP code not for reliably generating full working implementations. ...

There is currently a huge hype around the new MCP (Model Context Protocol) servers. I’ve built one for SAP Docs, and there are excellent community projects like the ADT API MCP Server. These tools are fantastic for individual developers. You install them, connect them to your IDE or a local LLM, and suddenly your AI assistant knows about SAP. Architecture overview (in one picture) Before diving into the details, here is the high-level architecture I’m aiming for: ...

Live benchmark results: abap-llm-benchmark.marianzeis.de In a lot of SAP webcasts and webinars, especially around AI, the question comes up very early: which model are you using, and which one do you recommend? For CAP and UI5 the answer is usually pretty simple: use the current best model from Anthropic. If you add good context via MCP servers from the community or SAP, you are basically fine. There is just a lot of public knowledge available, and most of it is in JavaScript/TypeScript, which LLMs handle extremely well. ...