I joined a team where the controller was 800 lines long, the business rules were scattered between the controller and the DbContext, and "to run the tests, spin up a SQL Server in Docker" was a sentence I heard every week. The fix was Clean Architecture. The argument I had with the team lead was about how to actually structure it. We argued for two weeks. Then I built this template so the next person wouldn't have to.
This is the Clean Architecture .NET 8 starter template I wish someone had handed me on day one. Four projects, strict dependency direction, domain entities that own their own invariants, and an Application layer you can unit test with Moq — no database required. The whole repo is on GitHub, MIT-licensed, runs with dotnet run, and ships with xUnit tests, JWT auth, Swagger, Docker, and CI.
This post is the explanation of why each project exists, what goes in it, and what I learned the hard way about getting Clean Architecture right in .NET.
The problem Clean Architecture solves
The naive way to build a .NET Web API is one project, one folder structure, and "everything talks to everything":
MyApp/
Controllers/
ProductsController.cs ← HTTP stuff
OrdersController.cs ← HTTP stuff + business rules
Services/
ProductService.cs ← business rules + DbContext.SaveChanges
Data/
AppDbContext.cs ← EF Core, entities
Models/
Product.cs ← POCO with public setters
This works for the first 1,000 lines. By 5,000 lines, the controller is doing five things at once. By 10,000, "to test this, I need a database" is the answer to every test question, and your CI takes 20 minutes because every test run spins up SQL Server.
Clean Architecture says: separate the business rules from the HTTP boundary, separate the database from the business rules, and enforce it with project references. A controller is allowed to call a service. A service is allowed to call a repository. A repository is allowed to know about EF Core. Nothing is allowed to know about anything "above" it in the chain. That's the rule.
The .NET implementation is four projects:
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ Api project │ ← HTTP, DTOs, Swagger
│ (Controllers, Program.cs) │
└────────────┬────────────────────┘
│ references
┌────────────▼────────────────────┐
│ Application project │ ← Use cases, services
│ (DTOs, Interfaces, Services) │
└────────────┬────────────────────┘
│ references
┌────────────▼────────────────────┐
│ Infrastructure project │ ← EF Core, JWT
│ (DbContext, Repositories) │
└────────────┬────────────────────┘
│ references
┌────────────▼────────────────────┐
│ Domain project │ ← Zero dependencies
│ (Entities, Interfaces) │
└─────────────────────────────────┘
The arrows only go down. The Domain project has zero NuGet dependencies outside the BCL. The Application project references Domain only. The Infrastructure project references both, but Domain and Application never reference Infrastructure. The compiler enforces the direction. A circular reference is a build error, not a code review comment.
Part 1 — the Domain layer
The Domain project contains the entities and the abstract interfaces that the Application layer depends on. No EF Core, no ASP.NET, no HTTP, no JSON. Just business rules.
The interesting file is Product.cs. It's not a POCO with public setters. It's a class with a DecreaseStock method that enforces its own invariants:
public class Product : BaseEntity
{
public string Name { get; set; } = string.Empty;
public string Description { get; set; } = string.Empty;
public decimal Price { get; set; }
public int StockQuantity { get; set; }
// Domain logic — entity enforces its own invariants
public bool IsInStock(int requestedQuantity) => StockQuantity >= requestedQuantity;
public void DecreaseStock(int quantity)
{
if (quantity <= 0)
throw new ArgumentException("Quantity must be positive.", nameof(quantity));
if (!IsInStock(quantity))
throw new InvalidOperationException($"Insufficient stock for product '{Name}'. " +
$"Requested {quantity}, available {StockQuantity}.");
StockQuantity -= quantity;
UpdatedAt = DateTime.UtcNow;
}
}
The crucial thing is that DecreaseStock is the only way to change StockQuantity from outside the class. The setter is public because EF Core needs it, but the domain logic is "you can't decrease stock by a negative number, and you can't decrease stock below zero." That logic lives on the entity, in Domain. The service, the controller, the test — none of them have to remember to validate. They call product.DecreaseStock(quantity) and the entity decides.
This is the part of Clean Architecture that actually matters. The dependency-direction rule is hygiene. The "entities own their invariants" rule is the architecture. If you take one thing from this post, take that: business rules belong on the business objects, not on the services that manipulate them.
Part 2 — the Application layer
The Application project contains the use cases. A use case is a verb at the level of the user, not the database. "Create a product" is a use case. "Insert a row into the products table" is not.
ProductService.cs is the canonical example:
public class ProductService : IProductService
{
private readonly IUnitOfWork _unitOfWork;
public ProductService(IUnitOfWork unitOfWork)
{
_unitOfWork = unitOfWork;
}
public async Task<ProductDto?> GetByIdAsync(int id, CancellationToken ct = default)
{
var product = await _unitOfWork.Products.GetByIdAsync(id, ct);
return product is null ? null : MapToDto(product);
}
public async Task<ProductDto> CreateAsync(CreateProductDto dto, CancellationToken ct = default)
{
var product = new Product
{
Name = dto.Name,
Description = dto.Description,
Price = dto.Price,
StockQuantity = dto.StockQuantity
};
await _unitOfWork.Products.AddAsync(product, ct);
await _unitOfWork.SaveChangesAsync(ct);
return MapToDto(product);
}
}
Two things to notice.
First, the service takes IUnitOfWork, not AppDbContext. This is the testability win. IUnitOfWork is an interface declared in the Domain project. The Infrastructure project provides the EF Core implementation. The Application project never knows EF Core exists. In a unit test, I write a fake IUnitOfWork in 10 lines and the test runs in 0 ms, with no database.
Second, the service returns DTOs, not entities. DTOs are flat data shapes designed for the wire. Entities are rich domain objects with behaviour. If I returned Product from the service, the controller would have access to product.DecreaseStock, and the controller could break invariants. The DTO is a contract: "this is what the service exposes to the outside world, and nothing more."
The "decrease stock" use case is the most interesting one because it touches three layers:
public async Task<OrderDto> CreateOrderAsync(CreateOrderDto dto, CancellationToken ct = default)
{
var product = await _unitOfWork.Products.GetByIdAsync(dto.ProductId, ct)
?? throw new InvalidOperationException($"Product {dto.ProductId} not found.");
// Domain logic — product enforces its own invariants
product.DecreaseStock(dto.Quantity);
var order = new Order
{
CustomerId = dto.CustomerId,
Items = new List<OrderItem> { new() { ProductId = product.Id, Quantity = dto.Quantity } }
};
await _unitOfWork.Orders.AddAsync(order, ct);
await _unitOfWork.SaveChangesAsync(ct);
return MapToDto(order);
}
The service does three things: load the product, ask the product to decrease its own stock, save the order. The validation logic — "you can't order 5 of something that has 3 in stock" — is in the entity. The service doesn't know about that rule. The service couldn't bypass it even if it tried, because DecreaseStock throws and the exception propagates up.
Part 3 — the Infrastructure layer
The Infrastructure project is where the rest of the world lives. EF Core, the SQL Server or SQLite provider, the JWT signing service, anything that talks to a network or a file system. Domain and Application never know this project exists.
AppDbContext.cs is the EF Core surface:
public class AppDbContext : DbContext
{
public AppDbContext(DbContextOptions<AppDbContext> options) : base(options) { }
public DbSet<Product> Products => Set<Product>();
public DbSet<Customer> Customers => Set<Customer>();
public DbSet<Order> Orders => Set<Order>();
public DbSet<OrderItem> OrderItems => Set<OrderItem>();
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.ApplyConfigurationsFromAssembly(typeof(AppDbContext).Assembly);
}
}
The repositories are the bridge between the service layer and EF Core:
public class ProductRepository : IProductRepository
{
private readonly AppDbContext _db;
public ProductRepository(AppDbContext db) { _db = db; }
public async Task<Product?> GetByIdAsync(int id, CancellationToken ct = default) =>
await _db.Products.FindAsync(new object[] { id }, ct);
public async Task<IReadOnlyList<Product>> GetAllAsync(CancellationToken ct = default) =>
await _db.Products.AsNoTracking().ToListAsync(ct);
public async Task<IReadOnlyList<Product>> GetInStockAsync(CancellationToken ct = default) =>
await _db.Products.AsNoTracking().Where(p => p.StockQuantity > 0).ToListAsync(ct);
public async Task AddAsync(Product product, CancellationToken ct = default) =>
await _db.Products.AddAsync(product, ct);
}
Note IProductRepository is declared in the Domain project, not Infrastructure. The Application layer's IUnitOfWork references IProductRepository and gets the EF Core implementation injected at startup. The Application layer doesn't know it's EF Core. Swap Repository<Product> for a Dapper implementation, or an in-memory fake for tests — the service code doesn't change.
Part 4 — the API layer
The API project is the HTTP boundary. Controllers are thin. They take a request, hand it to a service, return the result. No business logic. No DbContext. No SQL.
[ApiController]
[Route("api/[controller]")]
public class ProductsController : ControllerBase
{
private readonly IProductService _service;
public ProductsController(IProductService service) { _service = service; }
[HttpGet]
public async Task<ActionResult<IReadOnlyList<ProductDto>>> GetAll(CancellationToken ct)
=> Ok(await _service.GetAllAsync(ct));
[HttpGet("{id:int}")]
public async Task<ActionResult<ProductDto>> GetById(int id, CancellationToken ct)
{
var p = await _service.GetByIdAsync(id, ct);
return p is null ? NotFound() : Ok(p);
}
[HttpPost]
[Authorize(Roles = "Admin")]
public async Task<ActionResult<ProductDto>> Create(CreateProductDto dto, CancellationToken ct)
{
var created = await _service.CreateAsync(dto, ct);
return CreatedAtAction(nameof(GetById), new { id = created.Id }, created);
}
}
The controller is 30 lines. There's nothing to test here that isn't already tested in the service. In a real codebase I'd skip controller unit tests entirely and rely on integration tests with WebApplicationFactory.
The auth flow is a stripped-down demo. POST /api/auth/login with any email and any password returns a JWT. In production, replace this with ASP.NET Identity or an external IdP. The JWT plumbing, the [Authorize] attribute, and the Swagger "Authorize" button are all real and work — only the credential check is fake.
Part 5 — what I got wrong
Five things, in order of how much they cost.
5.1 Calling the entity an "anemic domain model" prematurely
When I first wrote Product as a POCO with public setters and put all the logic in ProductService, I called it Clean Architecture. It was not. It was an anemic domain model with extra project references.
The fix was hard. I had to move DecreaseStock, IsInStock, and the audit-timestamp logic from the service into the entity. The service stopped doing math. The tests changed — instead of testing the service, I tested the entity. The result is that the controller, the service, the test, and the future "bulk update from an admin tool" all share the same invariants. The rule is on the data, not on the caller.
The lesson: "Clean Architecture" without rich entities is just folders. The architecture is the placement of behaviour, not the placement of files.
5.2 Repositories with too many methods
I started with IProductRepository.GetByIdAsync, GetByIdWithOrdersAsync, GetActiveProductsAsync, GetProductsByCategoryAsync, GetProductsByPriceRangeAsync, etc. Each method was a one-off query. The repository became a dumping ground for every query in the system.
The fix is the generic IRepository<T> plus the IUnitOfWork aggregate root pattern. The generic repo handles GetById, Add, Update, Remove. Domain-specific queries (GetInStockAsync, GetProductsByCategoryAsync) live on aggregate-specific repos that extend the generic interface:
public interface IProductRepository : IRepository<Product>
{
Task<IReadOnlyList<Product>> GetInStockAsync(CancellationToken ct = default);
}
If a query is one-off and used in only one place, it can be a LINQ chain in the service. It doesn't need a repository method. Repositories are for queries that are reused, that have business meaning, or that the test needs to mock. Everything else is service code.
5.3 Returning entities from the service layer
First version of ProductService.GetByIdAsync returned Product. The controller passed it directly to Ok(product). ASP.NET serialized all the entity fields, including navigation properties. A Product with an Orders collection returned a JSON blob with 50 nested orders and 200 line items. The response was 2 MB for a single product.
The fix is DTOs. Always DTOs. The service is the boundary between "rich domain object" and "flat data shape for the wire." The service's job is to translate between them. MapToDto is the explicit acknowledgement that the wire format is a contract, not an accident.
5.4 Putting validation in the service
I started with if (dto.Price < 0) throw new ValidationException(...) at the top of every service method. It was repetitive, easy to forget, and mixed validation with business logic.
The fix is FluentValidation. Each DTO has a Validator<T> that lives in the Application project. The validators are auto-registered via DependencyInjection.cs. The service trusts that if it received a DTO, the DTO is valid. The controller, or an action filter, runs the validators before the service is called.
public class CreateProductDtoValidator : AbstractValidator<CreateProductDto>
{
public CreateProductDtoValidator()
{
RuleFor(x => x.Name).NotEmpty().MaximumLength(200);
RuleFor(x => x.Price).GreaterThan(0);
RuleFor(x => x.StockQuantity).GreaterThanOrEqualTo(0);
}
}
This is the "parse, don't validate" principle. The DTO arrives pre-validated. The service code reads as if the data is good. The failure modes are at the boundary, not scattered through the use cases.
5.5 The "test pyramid in reverse"
I wrote integration tests first, because "they test the real thing." Each test spun up a WebApplicationFactory, hit the API with HttpClient, and asserted on the response. The first 5 tests took 8 seconds. The full suite took 90 seconds. CI took 4 minutes. Adding a test meant a 90-second wait.
The fix is the test pyramid: lots of fast unit tests at the bottom, a few integration tests in the middle, and a handful of end-to-end tests at the top. Domain tests are pure functions, no I/O — 6 tests in 50 ms. Service tests use Moq for IUnitOfWork — 5 tests in 200 ms. Controller tests use WebApplicationFactory — 0 tests in my repo, because the controllers are 30-line pass-throughs that don't need their own tests.
The current test count is 11. The current test time is 1.2 seconds. That's the right ratio.
The repo and how to run it
The full source is at github.com/ZalaAvinash/dotnet-clean-architecture-starter. MIT license. 11 tests passing on every push.
git clone https://github.com/ZalaAvinash/dotnet-clean-architecture-starter.git
cd dotnet-clean-architecture-starter
dotnet run --project src/CleanArchitecture.Api
# Swagger UI: http://localhost:5xxx/swagger
Or with Docker:
docker compose up --build
# API at http://localhost:8080/swagger
Run the tests:
dotnet test
# 11 passed, 0 failed, ~1.2s
Closing
Clean Architecture in .NET is not a folder structure. It is a constraint on where code is allowed to live, enforced by the project system. A controller cannot call DbContext because the project reference doesn't allow it. A service cannot return an entity to the controller because the convention is "services return DTOs." A test can run in 5 ms because the unit test never touches the database, because the project structure makes that the natural way to write the test.
If your team is having the "where does the business logic go" argument, this template is the answer. Fork it, rename Product to Invoice or Patient or Trade, and ship the thing. The architecture is the same. The folder names are the same. The patterns are the same. The only thing that changes is the business.
If you fork it and add a feature — CQRS, MediatR, FluentValidation on the entity, multi-tenancy — send me a PR. I'd especially like to see a real auth flow with ASP.NET Identity or Auth0. The demo AuthController works for the template, but it shouldn't ship to production as-is.
Build with: .NET 8 · ASP.NET Core · EF Core 8 · SQLite / SQL Server · xUnit · FluentAssertions · Moq · FluentValidation · Serilog · Swagger · JWT · Docker
Repo: ZalaAvinash/dotnet-clean-architecture-starter
About the author: Avinash Zala is a senior .NET engineer in Surat, India, with 7+ years building enterprise web apps, APIs, and ERP systems. He writes about what he learns on the job. GitHub · LinkedIn