Launch day is close, and the material that decides readiness lives in two places: repositories on GitHub and pages in Notion. This example is a read-only review across both connections that ends in one citable report.

​
Connect both, then review read-only

Connect GitHub and Notion in Capabilities; both connect through OAuth. Start the review in a read-only context and write the brief into the prompt:

​
What to expect from approvals

Even a read-only review crosses tool-approval boundaries, one card per protected action. While you are still learning the workflow, approve read tools one at a time; you can switch to always-allow for tools you trust. Approvals wait in the right rail, so a review pauses rather than fails when you are away.

​
Read the report like an auditor

  • Citations make it reviewable. Exact record titles and links mean every claim can be checked at its source in seconds.
  • Facts, inferences, and gaps must be separated. “The migration guide exists” is a fact with a link. “The guide is probably current” is an inference. “Notion has no launch checklist” is only supportable if the agent actually searched for one.
  • Counts deserve a recount. A summary that says “eight guides” should match an inventory you can count yourself. Summaries drift; inventories do not.
  • Mind the boundary between connected and public. Material found through public search is not the same as material inside the connected account’s scope. Ask the report to label which is which.
Privacy check: a connected-source report can include details the decision never needed: account identifiers, email addresses, internal page or user IDs. Read the report before it is shared, and redact what the audience does not need.

​
The review protocol

  1. Start with a provider and scope inventory: what is connected, and what can it reach.
  2. Approve read tools only when the target and purpose are visible on the card.
  3. Require exact record titles, links, timestamps, and owners for every claim.
  4. Redact emails and provider-internal identifiers from the ordinary report.
  5. Check summary counts against the raw inventory.
  6. Separate connected private scope from publicly searchable material.
  7. Promote only verified conclusions into the issue or document that tracks the launch.

​
What good looks like

  • The review read two connections and wrote nothing.
  • Every claim in the report carries a citation someone else can open.
  • Facts, inferences, and unavailable evidence are visibly separated.
  • The conclusions that survived scrutiny are on an issue, not just in a session.