Skip to content

docs(drift): draft from relayprotocol/relay-kit#1038#350

Merged
ted-palmer merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs-drift/relayprotocol-relay-kit-pr-1038-f885816
Jun 30, 2026
Merged

docs(drift): draft from relayprotocol/relay-kit#1038#350
ted-palmer merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs-drift/relayprotocol-relay-kit-pr-1038-f885816

Conversation

@pedromcunha

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Drafted from relayprotocol/relay-kit#1038, requested by @ted-palmer.

This PR was auto-generated by the docs-draft-pr workflow from a Claude-drafted update in the source repo. It is opened as a draft — please review, edit as needed, and mark ready for review before merging.

Review checklist

  • Content matches the behavior shipped in the source PR
  • No internal-only details (service names, file paths, unreleased names, security internals) leaked into the draft
  • Conforms to CLAUDE.md style rules
  • Cross-references and internal links resolve
  • Any Needs human input items from the source comment are addressed

Generated by docs-draft-pr.yml in relayprotocol/relay-kit.

@mintlify

mintlify Bot commented Jun 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.

Project Status Preview Updated (UTC)
unevenlabs 🟢 Ready View Preview Jun 30, 2026, 2:51 PM

💡 Tip: Enable Workflows to automatically generate PRs for you.

@ted-palmer ted-palmer marked this pull request as ready for review June 30, 2026 14:52
@ted-palmer ted-palmer merged commit c9b2ba1 into main Jun 30, 2026
5 of 6 checks passed
@ted-palmer ted-palmer deleted the docs-drift/relayprotocol-relay-kit-pr-1038-f885816 branch June 30, 2026 14:53
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jun 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Claude encountered an error after 2m 41s —— View job


Code Review — PR #350 (docs drift from relay-kit#1038)

  • Read the diff vs base
  • Read the changed file in full for context
  • Check against CLAUDE.md SDK reference profile (§3.4) + global rules (§2)
  • Verify cross-references / internal links resolve
  • Post review findings

Scope: This PR adds the TON adapter to references/relay-kit/sdk/adapters.mdx — the description bullet (line 42) and its <CodeGroup> tab (lines 237–265). The page is an SDK reference (profile §3.4).

Overall this is a clean, accurate, well-written addition. The prose is internally consistent with the code (no adapter-level RPC endpoint, { boc } / { transactionHash } return shape, peer-dependency note), it's correctly placed inside the existing <CodeGroup>, and no internal-only details appear to have leaked. A few minor, non-blocking nits below.


🟡 Minor — TON description exceeds the paragraph-length cap (§2.10)

references/relay-kit/sdk/adapters.mdx:42

The TON bullet is a single ~4-sentence paragraph, two sentences of which are very long. §2.10 caps paragraphs at 2–3 sentences, and §2.4 asks for short paragraphs. Consider splitting the confirmation/httpRpcUrl detail and the peer-dependency note into separate sentences/lines, or trimming. (The neighboring Lighter bullet is also near the edge, but TON is the longest on the page.)

Fix this →

🟡 Minor — TON snippet isn't fully paste-and-run (§2.8)

references/relay-kit/sdk/adapters.mdx:248-249

adaptTonWallet(walletAddress, ...) and wallet.sendTransaction(request) reference walletAddress and wallet, which are never defined in the block. §2.8 asks each code block to be self-contained (imports + client/wallet construction) so it's paste-and-run. The Solana, Bitcoin, and Tron tabs all construct their wallet/address first; the TON tab should add a minimal line (or an explicit // from your TonConnect / Dynamic connector placeholder) so readers see where wallet/walletAddress come from.

Fix this →

ℹ️ Pre-existing (not introduced by this PR) — heading level drift (§2.2)

The whole page uses ### as its primary body heading (### What is an adapter anyway?, ### What adapters are available out of the box?, ### Viem adapter options). §2.2 specifies ## as the primary body heading on every page type. The TON change correctly slots into the existing structure rather than adding new headings, so this isn't a regression — flagging only so it can be cleaned up page-wide in a separate pass.


Verdict: Content is accurate and matches the source behavior; style nits are minor and optional. Looks good to ship.
claude/pr-350-20260630-1453

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants