Astro development suits content-heavy sites: documentation, publications, marketing sites with hundreds of pages, and anything where speed is the feature. It sends almost no JavaScript by default, which is why Gatilab reaches for it when the brief is reach and speed rather than application behaviour.
Delivery is remote, with calls in IST. You keep the code, the accounts, and every login in your own name.
Three failures account for most of what we get asked to rescue. All 3 are scoping problems wearing technical costumes.
A content site built on a full application framework pays the JavaScript cost on every page for behaviour it barely uses. Readers feel it first on a mid-range Android phone, which is most of the traffic in India.
Plenty of fast static sites are fast because nobody except a developer can update them. That is not a win, it is a bottleneck with good Lighthouse scores.
Structure that works at 40 pages quietly fails at 400: navigation, search, taxonomy, and build times all degrade together, and by then the fix is a rebuild.
Six pieces of work, each scoped on its own. Most engagements start with one and add the others once the first has paid for itself.
Versioned docs with fast search, code blocks that copy cleanly, and a structure that survives several hundred pages and several authors.
Editorial sites where reading experience, taxonomy, and page speed decide whether the content gets found and finished.
Astro in front of WordPress, Sanity, or a git-based CMS, chosen for who is editing rather than for what is fashionable.
Interactive pieces loaded only where they are used, so a calculator on one page does not tax every other page on the site.
Moving a content site onto Astro with the URLs, redirects, and search equity intact, which is the part that decides whether the move was worth it.
Preview builds per branch, sensible build times as content grows, and a deployment your team can trigger without asking us.
Prices are in rupees and exclude tax. The scoping sprint is a fixed fee and comes off the build price if you go ahead.
For teams who need a real number and a written plan before committing to a build.
The fee comes off the build price if you go ahead with us.
For a defined Astro build with content modelling and a migration plan.
If the work does not warrant a build, we quote the smaller fix instead.
For teams publishing continuously who want the platform maintained.
Month to month. A contract you cannot leave is a hostage situation.
Development and consulting are delivered remotely, so location changes meeting times and payment method rather than price. Hosting is never resold.
Chosen because they stay maintainable for whoever comes after us, not because they are new. If your team already runs something else and it works, we work in it.
Overruns come from work nobody scoped. Every stage produces an artifact you check before the next one starts.
We read what already exists before quoting. Most of the risk in this kind of work is invisible from the outside, so pricing it without looking is a guess dressed as a number.
You leave with: a written scope with the assumptions and risks named
Work happens on an environment your team can reach, reviewed weekly. You see it grow rather than getting a reveal at the end and a week to react.
You leave with: a staging URL you can click through as it grows
Error handling, logging, and rollback are built with the feature, not after it. The question is never whether something fails, it is whether you find out before your customers do.
You leave with: monitoring, alerting, and a rollback path that has been tested
Documentation your next hire can read, every account in your name, and a dependency list short enough to maintain.
You leave with: documentation, credentials, and no lock-in
Vague quotes do the most damage in exactly this kind of work. Half of this list is reasons we say no.
Scope, cost, ownership, and the cases where we are the wrong choice.
Astro ships almost no JavaScript by default, which makes it the better answer for content-heavy sites where reading speed is the product. Next.js is the better answer when the interface has real application behaviour. The choice follows the brief, and we make the case for whichever one fits rather than defaulting.
Yes, and it is a scoping decision rather than a limitation. Astro can sit in front of WordPress or a hosted CMS so editors keep an interface they know. A git-based workflow is only right when the people editing are comfortable with it.
Not if the redirects are done properly, which is the part most migrations skip. We crawl the existing site, map every URL, test on staging, and run a before and after crawl so any loss shows up immediately rather than next quarter.
Well, provided the content model and build strategy were designed for it. Incremental builds and sensible collections keep build times reasonable. The failure mode is treating a 400-page site like a 40-page one, which is a planning problem rather than a tool one.
Send the current situation, what you have already tried, and the outcome you need. The more specific you are, the more specific the reply.
Prefer to talk first? Message us on WhatsApp. Budgets under ₹27,000 are better served elsewhere and we will say so rather than take the project.
