Skip to main content

· 2 min read

Migrating to Astro for Documentation

I collaborated with the team to consolidate everything into a single Astro site. The choice was deliberate: Astro’s content collections, partial hydration, and static-first approach made it ideal for documentation.

Why Astro

The previous setup was a mix of Gatsby, Docusaurus, and an internal legacy tool, each with its own quirks. Gatsby’s plugin ecosystem was stagnant and upgrading between major versions was painful. Docusaurus was fine but opinionated in ways that didn’t fit our needs. The internal tool was barely maintained. The team spent more time fighting the tooling than writing docs.

Astro offered a fresh start. Content collections gave us type-safe frontmatter validation out of the box. The build times were the real sell. The docs went from long, multi-minute builds across different technologies to a fraction of the time. That alone changed the contribution culture, because people actually wanted to update docs when the feedback loop was fast.

The Migration

We approached it incrementally. The old URLs were preserved through redirects.

The hardest part was not the technical migration. It was getting buy-in from writers who had workflows built around the old system. I addressed this by making the new system strictly better in every measurable way: faster builds, better search, type-safe frontmatter that caught errors early.

We also built a custom Astro component library for docs-specific elements: callouts, code tabs, API reference tables, and interactive examples. These components were Astro-native, with no client-side JavaScript unless the component specifically needed it.

What I Learned

Documentation is a product. Treating it with the same rigor as the main app (CI checks, type safety, preview deployments, component library) made a real difference in quality and contributor experience.

If you’re running docs on a legacy static site generator and the build times are killing contribution velocity, Astro is worth evaluating. The migration cost is real, but the payoff in developer experience compounds quickly.