A connection can work.
A launch can still be blocked.
Charter helps developers and coding agents see the permissions, approvals, and next actions behind an OAuth integration.
The problem worth solving
A developer can build a callback while missing the requirement that delays public launch. Registration, provider review, customer-admin approval, and user consent are separate decisions. The useful output is a contextual next step with evidence.
Start by checking whether an owned registration is needed: Composio-managed OAuth can supply it for supported methods. Charter focuses on the developer-owned setup path.
Three examples. Three different obstacles.
A shared guide schema supports additional providers. These are three reviewed examples, not a completed 100-app library.
The product choices
- Context changes the plan. Audience, capability, and stage shape the relevant path.
- Work and waiting stay separate. Estimates include their basis; unknown approval gates remain unresolved.
- Humans and agents share one record. Visual guidance, Markdown, JSON, and MCP preserve the same evidence and assumptions.
- Research fills the gaps. Public documents → Gemini synthesis → schema and reference checks → saved, shareable guide.
Nango’s review guidance and Airbyte’s AI-assisted configuration informed the approach. Charter’s proposed value is combining launch decisions and agent handoff; demand and time savings still need user validation.
What actually ran
Linear documentation → three fetched sources → a generated guide saved in approximately 44 seconds. Partial because some approval requirements remain unknown.
Inspect the saved resultPublic contract checks passed 15/15 after the waiting correction, including REST, Markdown, MCP, context preservation, and persistence. These checks establish interface behavior, not the correctness of every generated claim.
Validation findings and boundaries
- Reviewed provider documentation was used to distinguish GitHub organization restrictions, Gmail scope categories, and Slack distribution paths.
- Earlier model calls failed explicitly for billing or quota; they did not produce invented guides.
- The original Linear waiting label could imply zero wait. A versioned correction now marks overall waiting unknown while preserving the source estimate. Eight policy checks and the post-correction interface suite pass.
- No signed-in provider registration, token exchange, approval submission, or user interview was performed. Current hosted visual verification is limited by unavailable browser control.
What I would test next
Watch developers investigate one unfamiliar provider with and without Charter. Measure time to a correct next action, consequential factual errors, and whether the agent can act without losing context. Then improve exact-scope decisions, source freshness, and interrupted-job recovery.
Submission tracking is deferred: provider review status is often not exposed, and a tracker would add a second workflow before the guidance is proven.