Improved OAuth PKCE documentation clarity

[mintlify]

Fixed customer confusion about PKCE flow by adding PKCE parameters to Step 2 (authorization URL) and reorganizing Step 3 to show PKCE as the default/recommended approach. Made PKCE flow more prominent throughout the OAuth documentation.

---

Created by Mintlify agent

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated authorization quickstart guide with PKCE parameter details and prerequisites.
  • Restructured token exchange examples to present both PKCE and client-secret authentication flows in a tabbed interface for easier comparison and selection.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Bot user detected.

To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Walkthrough

Documentation update to the quickstart guide restructuring OAuth authorization and token exchange examples. Added PKCE parameters to the authorization URL, introduced explanatory blocks for PKCE prerequisites, and reorganized token exchange examples into tabbed flows presenting PKCE and client-secret authentication methods separately.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)

Summary

Quickstart documentation updates integrations/quickstart.mdx

Added code_challenge and code_challenge_method parameters to authorization URL example; introduced Info block explaining PKCE prerequisites; replaced single fetch-based token exchange example with tabbed interface offering two distinct flows (PKCE with code_verifier and client-secret authentication), each with separate code examples and parameter tables; removed previous standalone PKCE prose narrative.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

• Verify that code examples in both tabbed flows (PKCE and client-secret) are syntactically correct and semantically accurate
• Confirm PKCE prerequisites and parameter descriptions in the Info block are technically sound
• Check that the tabbed UI formatting renders correctly across different viewers

Poem

🐰 A rabbit hops through docs so bright,
PKCE flows now in the light!
Two paths revealed in tabs so neat,
OAuth's journey, oh so sweet! 🔐✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately reflects the main change: improving PKCE documentation clarity by restructuring OAuth flow examples and making PKCE more prominent.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[steven-tey]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

integrations/quickstart.mdx (2)

50-55: Add guidance on generating code_challenge and code_verifier.

While the documentation now correctly identifies code_challenge and code_challenge_method as PKCE requirements, developers implementing PKCE will need instructions on how to generate these values from a code_verifier. The current documentation assumes developers either already know this or can infer it.

Consider adding a helper note or link explaining:

• How to generate a secure random code_verifier
• How to hash it into a code_challenge using SHA-256 and base64url encoding
• Or reference to an OAuth library that handles this (as mentioned in line 21)

This will significantly reduce developer friction and support requests.

---

86-120: Clarify server-side application guidance for PKCE.

The tab structure presents PKCE as suitable for "native desktop, mobile applications and SPAs" (line 87), and the "With client secret" tab as for "server-side applications" (line 120). This framing may inadvertently suggest that server-side applications cannot or should not use PKCE, which is inaccurate.

Server-side applications can and should use PKCE when the client_secret cannot be embedded in a backend service, or as an additional security layer. Consider adjusting the guidance to clarify that:

• PKCE (recommended) is the most secure option for all architectures, especially client-side apps and SPAs
• With client secret is an alternative for server-side apps where client_secret can be securely stored—but PKCE is still compatible and encouraged

This prevents confusion and sets better security expectations.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8946c36 and 4c985f3.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• integrations/quickstart.mdx (2 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

integrations/quickstart.mdx (1)

85-148: Excellent restructuring for clarity and best practices.

The shift from a single token exchange example to a tabbed approach with PKCE presented as recommended is a strong improvement. The code examples are syntactically correct, the parameter tables are consistent, and the explanatory text clearly articulates the security benefits of PKCE (especially line 89: "client_secret is never sent to the authorization server").

The positioning of PKCE as the default path aligns with OAuth 2.0 best practices and will help guide developers toward more secure implementations.