NewBase
Get in touch

v0 to Astro

Migrate from v0 to Astro

A v0 project already gives us the most useful migration artifact, which is the code. The work is deciding which parts still need React and application infrastructure, which parts should become Astro, and where the content should live once those decisions are explicit.

Start a project

A migration like this usually takes 1–3 weeks

What actually migrates.

What you have What happens Why
The repository Stays put Does not move, on purpose. The old platform keeps this because it is the thing it is good at, and the new front end reads from it. There is nothing to scrape from the published site. The existing project gives us the components, the assets, the routes and the integrations to work from.
React components Reconfigure The same thing, set up again. Nothing is recreated, but it has to be pointed at the new site by hand. Components that genuinely need state or browser behavior can stay React inside Astro. Presentational ones are usually simpler as Astro components that ship no client runtime at all.
Routes Rebuild Made again in Astro. The old version is a reference rather than something that can be imported. Public routes become Astro pages and layouts. Application routes can stay application surfaces where there is no reason to move them.
Publishing content Move Comes across as it is. The content survives the move and the work is transporting it, not remaking it. Copy, FAQs, resources and testimonials come out of the component files and into content collections or a CMS, depending on who publishes.
Server behavior Stays put Does not move, on purpose. The old platform keeps this because it is the thing it is good at, and the new front end reads from it. API calls, authentication and database access are judged one at a time. Moving the marketing front end does not require rewriting a working backend.
URLs Reconfigure The same thing, set up again. Nothing is recreated, but it has to be pointed at the new site by hand. Every known public address is inventoried, preserved where practical and deliberately redirected where the routing changes.

Where this migration gets complicated.

  1. 01

    React is both useful code and unnecessary runtime

    The project holds genuinely interactive components beside large sections that only render text, images and links. Treating both the same either throws away code worth keeping or ships more application runtime than the site needs.

  2. 02

    Generated structure reflects how the project was discovered

    A project built through prompts accumulates routes, abstractions and component boundaries as the requirements appear. Before that structure is carried forward, somebody has to decide which of those decisions still make sense now that the site is understood. Generation history is not information architecture.

How the migration works.

  1. Audit

    Routes, React components, client directives, server behavior and content, sorted into website and application.

  2. Rebuild

    Public routes become Astro pages, and React stays only on the components that genuinely hold state.

  3. Migrate

    Publishing content out of the JSX and into the model, addresses preserved or redirected, every route checked.

  4. Hand over

    The repository, the migration map and documentation written for somebody who was not here.

What is included.

Every migration includes the front-end rebuild, the content and asset move, the integration work, URL coverage, QA and post-launch monitoring. What changes with the platform is how hard each one is, which is what the rest of the page is for.

  • Design rebuild

    Rebuilt as components, not approximated.

  • Responsive development

    Desktop, tablet and mobile, built and checked.

  • CMS architecture

    Collections and fields mapped before build.

  • Content migration

    Migrated and checked against the source.

  • Asset migration

    Collected, compressed and rehosted.

  • Forms and integrations

    Tested through to the final record.

  • URL coverage

    Every known public address preserved or deliberately redirected.

  • Metadata and canonicals

    Preserved wherever possible.

  • Search footprint preservation

    URLs inventoried before and checked after.

  • Pre-launch QA

    Forms, templates and old URLs verified.

  • Post-launch support

    One week of indexing and traffic checks included.

Search visibility can move during a migration. The goal is to preserve what search engines already understand, and to catch what changed quickly after launch.

And it is yours at the end. The repository sits in your organization rather than mine, the handoff documentation is written for somebody who was not here, and nothing about the project requires me: another developer or your own team can operate it.

Get the words out of the components.

A generated project holds its headlines, its FAQs and its pricing copy inside the JSX, which is fine until somebody outside engineering needs to change one. Those strings want a home: content collections maintained alongside the front end, a headless CMS such as Sanity where marketing publishes on its own schedule, or the component itself on a small site that changes twice a year. Application data is a different question and stays application data: user records do not belong in a CMS because the marketing front end moved.

  1. 01

    Content Collections, in the repository

    For a team that publishes rarely and is happy in a pull request. The content is files beside the code, typed and checked at build time, with no service to pay for and nothing to keep running. It stops suiting you the day somebody outside engineering needs to publish without help.

  2. 02

    A headless CMS, such as Sanity

    For a team that publishes regularly, or where the person writing is not the person deploying. Editors get a real interface, the model is explicit, and the site reads it at build time. It is another system to configure and pay for, and the modeling is the part that decides whether editors can work on their own.

  3. 03

    No CMS at all

    For a site whose pages change a few times a year. Everything lives in components, changes go through the same review as any other change, and there is no editorial layer to maintain. Honest for a small site, and the wrong answer the moment a blog is added.

Content Collections against a headless CMS, and how the choice is made.

A migration is not finished when the new site looks right.

These are acceptance criteria rather than features. The codebase, the site inventory and the connected systems are each checked against what you started with, and the answer is a count rather than an opinion.

  • 01 Codebase

    A codebase your team owns

    Components, routes and styles rebuilt deliberately, not cleaned up from exported markup.

    Verified by Repository and component structure

  • 02 Site

    Everything accounted for

    Collections, content, metadata and existing addresses checked against the source.

    Verified by Source inventory and migration checks

  • 03 Systems

    Handoffs that actually arrive

    Forms, analytics and CRM checked at their destination rather than at the button.

    Verified by Submissions, events and records

The migration is complete when these pass, not when the homepage looks right.

The figures above are an illustration of the report's shape. Yours are counted from your own site.

See everything included in a migration

Keep using AI. Give it a settled architecture.

v0 is excellent at using prompts to discover and build an interface quickly, and moving the public front end to Astro does not mean giving that up. What changes is the substrate. Developers and coding agents work against explicit routes, a content model and component boundaries, rather than continuing to make architectural decisions while the product is still being discovered.

The important part is not that an agent can write code. It is that the project is structured well enough for its changes to be understood, reviewed and reversed.

  • Marketing

    Editor or AI assistant CMS Preview Publish

    On the headless CMS answer above. Choose content collections instead and this lane runs through the repository and the review with the developers, which is exactly why that decision comes before the rebuild rather than after it.

  • Developers

    Branch Components and routes Review Deploy

    The same workflow as any other repository, which is what makes a second developer able to pick it up.

  • Coding agents

    Project instructions Branch Review Deploy

    Against the real repository, under the same review a person gets. An agent is only as safe as the documentation and the tests it is working against, which is why those are deliverables rather than extras.

Integrations

Changing the frontend doesn't mean changing your stack.

The site is one part of a marketing stack, and a migration that leaves the rest of it broken has not finished. Each of these is a deliberate integration with a guide behind it, rather than a script pasted into a header somewhere.

All 24 integration guides

Coming from somewhere else?

Or weigh v0 against Astro before deciding

Reach out and see if we are a good fit.

Get in touch

Currently booking two to four weeks out.