[MedusaJS / Kong / Nango (new category shape)] Should MedusaJS, Kong, or Nango be supported, and as what category?

[JustineDevs]

Summary

These three don't map onto any existing schema category
(packages/types/src/schemas.ts / BetterTStackConfigSchema), unlike payments,
observability, or addons. Before any implementation issue is opened for them, the
category shape needs to be decided.

Per-tool framing

• MedusaJS — full headless commerce backend. Competes with the existing backend
  choice (like hono, express, elysia), not a payments add-on. Would this be a
  new BackendSchema value, or a separate ecommerce category composable with any backend?
• Kong — API gateway, infrastructure-layer and orthogonal to a single scaffolded app.
  Unclear if this fits the single-project generator model at all — does it belong in
  docker-compose addon scaffolding instead of its own category?
• Nango — third-party integrations/OAuth proxy. Could this be modeled as an auth-adjacent
  or integrations category, or is it too niche for a generic starter generator?

Decision needed

For each, a maintainer call on:

1. Is this in scope for the generator at all (vs. docker-compose/addon-level docs only)?
2. If in scope, what's the new schema shape, and does it require changes to
   analyzeStackCompatibility() / validateAddonCompatibility in
   packages/types/src/compatibility.ts?

Not in scope for this issue

No implementation proposed here — purely scoping/architecture discussion.

[Marve10s]

Shipped