umbraco-sitemap

# Sitemap Two supported ways to add an XML sitemap: | | **A — Cached controller** (default) | **B — Razor template** | |---|---|---| | Reference | [approach-a-cached-controller.md](references/approach-a-cached-controller.md) | [approach-b-razor-template.md](references/approach-b-razor-template.md) | | Source | Custom code from documented building blocks | Verified template + package manifest in `assets/`, following the official [tutorial](https://docs.umbraco.com/umbraco-cms/develop-with-umbraco/tutorials/creating-an-xml-site-map.md) | | Backoffice work | None — file-based only | Required: Document Types, composition, content node | | Sitemap URL | Fixed `/sitemap.xml` | The XmlSiteMap content node (e.g. `/xml-sitemap`) | | Caching | In-memory, auto-invalidated | None — rendered per request | | Best for | Headless/Delivery-API sites, no backoffice access | Traditional Razor sites, per-page editor control | ### How to decide Default to A. Choose B when the team wants the official-docs approach or per-page editor control (priority / change frequency / hide). B's Document Types, composition and template ship as `assets/sitemap-package.xml` + `assets/xmlSitemap.cshtml`, so it can be installed as a package or built by hand from that spec; prefer the [Umbraco Developer MCP](https://docs.umbraco.com/umbraco-in-ai/mcp/cms-developer-mcp) for the backoffice steps, and if unavailable walk the user through them manually — don't drop to A just because the MCP is missing. Only fall back to A if backoffice access isn't possible at all. If ambiguous, briefly offer both and recommend A. ## Version compatibility Both target **Umbraco 17+**. Approach A uses `IDocumentNavigationQueryService` (Umbraco 15+). ## Validation Assertions for both approaches live in [`evals/evals.json`](evals/evals.json); run them with the `umbraco-skill-evaluator` skill.