Most teams do not have a documentation problem. They have a scatter problem: the PR explains the fix, the debate happened in Slack, the business context sits in Linear, the schema truth lives in Supabase, and the postmortem notes are in a Google Doc someone will "clean up later."
What this article solves: How to think about ScopeDocs integrations without treating your stack like a checklist. Which sources matter first, which can wait, and how to write docs people actually read.
Who this is for: Tech leads rolling out generative documentation, platform engineers wiring integrations, and anyone tired of articles that shout "connect everything" and call it a strategy.
Start where truth already changes: GitHub
If you only connect one thing, make it GitHub.
Pull requests are where engineers explain themselves under mild social pressure. Review comments capture tradeoffs. Merged code is the closest thing you have to ground truth. Documentation that cannot point to a PR is usually opinion dressed up as fact.
Teams that skip GitHub and start with wikis are documenting a museum of outdated beliefs.
Add the channel where arguments happen: Slack
Slack is messy on purpose. That is the point.
The quick "why not Redis?" thread at 4 PM often matters more than the ADR someone promised to write next sprint. Connecting Slack does not mean dumping every #random joke into your knowledge base. It means pulling decision-shaped threads into docs with links back to the original conversation.
Pair GitHub + Slack and you already cover a large share of "why did we build it this way?"
Pick one home for work tracking
You do not need Linear and Jira on day one unless your org actually uses both for the same work (rare, painful, unfortunately real).
- Linear teams: connect Linear for ticket context, scope, and the narrative between "we planned X" and "we shipped Y."
- Jira teams: same job, different accent. Epics and incident tickets become first-class sources.
The failure mode is documenting tickets without code. The win is linking tickets to the PRs that closed them.
When the database is part of the answer: Supabase
If your product's behavior depends on live schema and data, Supabase is not a nice-to-have.
Onboarding questions sound like "what table holds idempotency keys?" On-call questions sound like "is this column nullable in prod?" Docs that ignore the database answer the easy questions and lie about the hard ones.
Connect Supabase when engineers routinely open the dashboard to settle debates. Skip it when your app is a thin API over someone else's data warehouse.
The wiki you already have: Notion and Confluence
Notion shops and Confluence shops rarely switch because a vendor asked nicely. Connect the wiki your company already treats as official.
The goal is not to duplicate every page. It is to stop the wiki from drifting into fiction while GitHub tells the real story. Confluence-heavy enterprises often start here for compliance. Notion-heavy startups often start here because the RFC already lives there.
RFCs in the wild: Google Drive
Google Drive is where polite companies store the doc titled FINAL_v7_REALLY_FINAL_architecture.pdf.
If your staff engineers live in Drive for design reviews, connect it. If nobody has opened Drive since 2022, do not bother for nostalgia.
Decisions that never became tickets: Fathom
Fathom shines when product and engineering decisions happen on calls and disappear.
"We agreed to delay the migration" is not in Linear. It is in a meeting summary. Connecting Fathom turns those summaries into searchable context with receipts, which is infinitely better than asking Sarah what she remembers from last Tuesday.
When pages go red: Datadog
Connect Datadog when on-call engineers live in monitors.
Runbooks that do not reference the alert that wakes people up feel like fiction written by someone who has never been paged. Linking Datadog helps docs answer "what metric told us this was broken?" not just "restart the pod and hope."
If your team has never opened Datadog during an incident, fix your observability culture first. Then wire the integration.
A sane rollout order (example)
| Phase | Connect | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | GitHub | Ground truth for what shipped |
| Week 2 | Slack + Linear or Jira | Decisions + planned work |
| Week 3 | Supabase or wiki (Notion/Confluence) | Where your team already looks for "official" truth |
| Later | Google Drive, Fathom, Datadog | RFCs, calls, and ops context |
Your order will differ. A platform team might flip Datadog earlier. A product-heavy squad might flip Fathom earlier. That is the point.
Writing docs people will read
Integrations are useless if the output reads like a terms-of-service generator.
A few rules that help:
- Lead with the answer. On-call docs start with what to check. Onboarding docs start with what the system does. Nobody wants your history of databases before they know which service is on fire.
- Name the source. "Per PR #847" beats "the system was updated."
- Do not name every tool in every paragraph. Readers notice when you are SEO-stuffing your own stack.
- Sound like the team. If your docs do not resemble how your engineers talk in review comments, they will not trust them.
Checklist: intentional integration rollout
- Connect GitHub and verify one doc links to a real PR
- Add Slack (or your primary chat tool) for decision threads
- Add Linear or Jira, not both, unless you must
- Add Supabase if schema questions come up weekly
- Add Notion or Confluence if a wiki is still your official face
- Add Google Drive, Fathom, or Datadog when a specific audience (staff eng, PM, on-call) asks for it
The point
Nine integrations does not mean nine times the work on every doc. It means the right source shows up when a reader cares.
That is what keeps documentation current: not more writing, but better wiring.
See how ScopeDocs connects your stack or walk through setting up source-linked docs for a new repo.