Support integration guide
Front + UbiGrowth workflows
Front is a shared inbox and customer operations platform where email-based customer workflows are routed and assigned. This guide covers the records that matter, how the connection should be scoped, and what the first bounded workflow should be.
Introduction
Make Front part of the workflow, not another silo.
Validate connector availability for your workspace
This guide covers how a team designs a support workflow around Front with UbiGrowth: which records stay authoritative, how the connection should be scoped, what the first bounded workflow should be, and how to tell whether it worked.
The records that matter are Conversation, Message, Inbox, Contact, Comment, Rule, and Tag. Front models shared inboxes, so a Conversation has an assignee separate from its recipients, and internal Comments sit alongside customer Messages in one thread.
Front is not currently on UbiVibe's verified connector list. This page is an implementation design reference: use it to specify the workflow, then validate whether the connection is available and correctly scoped for your workspace before you make it a dependency. The verified UbiVibe connections today are Salesforce, HubSpot, Gmail, Google Drive, Slack, and GitHub.
The platform layer is the usual destination for this connection, because the value shows up as governed context and execution shared across more than one team.
Why teams evaluate this connection
Integrations create value when they remove operating friction.
The first design decision is not which API endpoint to call; it is which system owns the record, what event should trigger work, who owns the exception path, and what successful completion means.
Support integrations are usually justified with deflection metrics, which is the wrong starting point. The expensive part of a ticket is not the reply; it is the time an agent spends assembling context from Front, the CRM, the product, and the issue tracker before they can write anything useful.
The second cost is escalation. A ticket handed to another team without account context, history, and reproduction detail comes back as a question, and the customer waits through a round trip that added nothing.
You're likely here because
- Agents assemble customer context from several systems before replying
- Escalations arrive at other teams missing the detail they need
- Support tooling improvements never clear the engineering backlog
Record model
What a Front integration actually reads and writes.
Integration design starts from the objects the system really exposes, not from a generic connector diagram. These are Front's.
Identity and matching
Front models shared inboxes, so a Conversation has an assignee separate from its recipients, and internal Comments sit alongside customer Messages in one thread.
Start here
Read Conversations unassigned past the team's pickup target and route them with the sender's account context.
What this will not do
It will not enforce ownership. Front makes shared ownership workable; deciding who owns what is still a team agreement.
The constraint to plan around
Comments and Messages are distinct resources on the same conversation, and confusing them is how an internal discussion reaches a customer. Any reply path must be explicit about which it is creating.
Build notes
What you actually have to reason about in Front.
The fields that carry meaning, how the connection authenticates, and whether the event surface can be trusted. This is the part that decides whether the integration works in month three.
| Field | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| comment vs message | distinct resources on one conversation, and confusing them sends internal discussion to the customer |
| inbox id | the shared mailbox scope |
| assignee id | ownership within a shared inbox, separate from the recipients |
| status | assigned, unassigned, archived, deleted |
| conversation id vs message id | threading, where replies must reference the right one |
Authentication
API token with scopes, at company or individual level. Company-level tokens reach every shared inbox, which is appropriate for automation and broad for a single workflow.
Events and delivery
Webhooks and rules both exist, with rules being Front-side automation that can conflict with external logic. Establish which side owns a routing decision.
Workflow
How the Front workflow runs.
The operating sequence, from reading the source system through to the result landing back where it belongs.
Step 01
Pick up the ticket with context
The account, purchase, and prior-conversation context for a Front ticket is assembled before the agent starts writing.
Step 02
Triage against real priority
Tickets are grouped by issue type, account context, and age so the queue reflects what matters rather than arrival order.
Step 03
Draft with the human in the loop
A response is drafted from the assembled context and reviewed by the agent, who remains responsible for what the customer receives.
Step 04
Escalate with the history attached
Escalations carry account context, history, and reproduction detail into the receiving system, removing the clarification round trip.
Design decisions
The support decisions this connection forces.
Each of these has to be settled before the Front workflow is allowed to write anything.
Step 01
Define the escalation contract
Decide what an escalation leaving Front must include — account context, history, reproduction detail — so the receiving team does not have to ask.
Step 02
Keep the customer-facing boundary explicit
Context assembly, triage, and drafting can be automated well before automated replies are appropriate. Treat those as separate decisions.
Implementation path
How to implement the Front workflow.
- 01
Pick one high-volume issue type and map exactly which context an agent needs to resolve it.
- 02
Connect Front and the systems holding that context, at scopes limited to support use.
- 03
Build a triage or context surface in Launch and test it against recent real tickets rather than samples.
- 04
Once unassigned-age routing works, add response-time reporting per inbox so the staffing conversation has evidence.
Governance
Controls that matter.
Control 01
Customer-facing replies stay under human review; the workflow assembles and drafts rather than autonomously answering.
Control 02
Access exposes the customer context the workflow needs, not the whole account surface.
Control 03
Billing, refund, and account-change actions require explicit human authorization.
Failure modes
How a Front integration breaks in production.
Not generic integration advice. These follow from how this system actually behaves, which is why they look nothing like the list on the next guide over.
Symptom 01
An internal comment is emailed to the customer.
Cause
A message was created where a comment was intended — they are adjacent resources.
Fix
Use the comments endpoint for internal discussion and verify in a test inbox.
Symptom 02
Front rules and external automation contradict each other.
Cause
Both are making routing decisions on the same conversations.
Fix
Decide which side owns routing and disable the other, rather than tuning both.
Symptom 03
Conversations sit unassigned in a shared inbox.
Cause
Nobody owns unassigned work by default.
Fix
Alert on unassigned age with a named fallback owner.
What changes at scale
Rate limits are per company token. Webhook-driven handling scales; the practical limit is usually rule complexity rather than API throughput.
Examples
What a working Front workflow looks like.
Bounded scenarios rather than a feature list. Each one can be verified against work the team already does.
Shared inbox workflows
With Front connected, the account, purchase, and prior-conversation context relevant to a ticket is assembled before the agent starts, instead of across five open tabs.
Triage surface
A Launch-built queue view groups Front tickets by issue type, account value, and age — the view the team actually needs, without waiting for engineering capacity.
Limitations and considerations
What to validate before you depend on this.
- Comments and Messages are distinct resources on the same conversation, and confusing them is how an internal discussion reaches a customer. Any reply path must be explicit about which it is creating.
- Posting a message where a comment was intended emails the customer. This is the single most consequential API confusion in Front, and both calls succeed.
- When ownership is genuinely undefined. Front makes shared ownership workable and does not decide who owns what.
- This is not an autonomous customer-facing agent. Replies should stay under human review, particularly where the account or issue carries real consequences.
- Context quality depends on the systems behind Front. A stale CRM record produces a confident and wrong summary.
FAQ
Front integration questions.
What records does a Front integration actually work with?
The primary records are Conversation, Message, Inbox, Contact, Comment, Rule, and Tag. Front models shared inboxes, so a Conversation has an assignee separate from its recipients, and internal Comments sit alongside customer Messages in one thread.
What should the first Front workflow be?
Read Conversations unassigned past the team's pickup target and route them with the sender's account context.
What will a Front integration not do?
It will not enforce ownership. Front makes shared ownership workable; deciding who owns what is still a team agreement.
What is the main constraint to plan around?
Comments and Messages are distinct resources on the same conversation, and confusing them is how an internal discussion reaches a customer. Any reply path must be explicit about which it is creating.
What changes about a Front integration at scale?
Rate limits are per company token. Webhook-driven handling scales; the practical limit is usually rule complexity rather than API throughput.
How does authentication work for Front?
API token with scopes, at company or individual level. Company-level tokens reach every shared inbox, which is appropriate for automation and broad for a single workflow.
Does Front support webhooks, and can they be trusted?
Webhooks and rules both exist, with rules being Front-side automation that can conflict with external logic. Establish which side owns a routing decision.
What is the risk of writing to Front?
Posting a message where a comment was intended emails the customer. This is the single most consequential API confusion in Front, and both calls succeed.
When is connecting Front the wrong call?
When ownership is genuinely undefined. Front makes shared ownership workable and does not decide who owns what.
What should a Front integration automate first?
Start with one bounded workflow that removes a measurable handoff, duplicate-entry step, reporting delay, or follow-up gap. Expand only after the first workflow is reliable.
Does UbiGrowth require Front to be replaced?
No. The operating model is designed around connecting to systems that should remain authoritative and building workflows around them rather than forcing a wholesale replacement.
Is connector availability identical for every workspace?
No. Availability can depend on provider configuration, authentication, scopes, workspace setup, and deployment state. Validate the required connection before treating it as an operational dependency.
Does this replace Front?
No. Front stays the system of record for conversations. The workflow layer sits around it for context assembly, triage, and connected escalation.
Will it reply to customers automatically?
Not by default, and not until the workflow has been proven. Context assembly and drafting are separate decisions from automated sending.
How do escalations improve?
The escalation carries its trigger, account context, and history into the receiving system, which removes the clarification round trip that usually costs the customer another day.
How this access is governed
What ARIA is allowed to do in Front, and who decides.
Connecting Front is a permission decision, not just a setup step. These are the controls that decide what ARIA can reach, what it can change, what gets recorded, and how you take the access back.
Required permissions
ARIA works through the scopes the connection was granted, and no others. Authorization happens at the provider, so the permissions being requested are shown by the system itself before anything is connected.
What it can reach
Reachable systems are the intersection of what your organization approved in the connector registry and what the requesting identity is permitted to use. Identity resolves before execution, not after.
What it can do
Actions run through explicit execution paths with state, spend, and failure boundaries — a bounded worker path rather than an open-ended agent loop with a credential.
Credential handling
Credentials live in the governed connection layer and are resolved through canonical connection identity. They are not pasted into individual workflows, prompts, or generated artifacts.
Action logging
Execution carries state and traces: what triggered the work, which connection it used, and what came back — including an explicit failure when something did not run.
Approval and revocation
Consequential actions can be made to require a person to approve them. Access can be changed or revoked at the connection, and ARIA loses that reach without unpicking the work already completed.
Start with ARIA
Ask ARIA to run this integration.
Describe the outcome you need across this system. ARIA works out the scopes, data, and actions the job requires, and operates inside the access you grant — which you can change or revoke.
- ARIA acts only through the systems and permissions you connect.
- Connections use scoped credentials you can change or revoke.
- Actions are recorded, and consequential ones can require approval.
Start here
Turn the integration into a working business outcome.
Start with ARIA to describe the outcome, then continue into the product path that fits the workflow. Connector availability and required scopes should be validated for the specific workspace before production use.