docs(drift): draft from internal source

[pedromcunha]

Drafted from an internal source repo, requested by @arcticfloyd1984.

This PR was auto-generated by the reusable-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 reusable-docs-draft-pr.yml in relayprotocol/agents-config.

[mintlify]

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

Project	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
unevenlabs	🟢 Ready	View Preview	Jun 10, 2026, 9:25 AM

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

[github-actions]

Claude finished @pedromcunha's task in 1m 17s —— View job

---

Code review — PR #336 (API changelog drift draft)

• Read the changed file (references/api/changelog.mdx)
• Compare against origin/main
• Check conformance to CLAUDE.md style rules (§4.2, §4.5)
• Verify cross-references / links resolve
• Post review feedback

---

The diff adds a single new changelog entry at the top of references/api/changelog.mdx. It's clean and well-formed — nothing else in the file changed.

✅ Style conformance

• Newest-first ordering (§4.5) — correct, the new 2026-06-10 entry sits above 2026-06-05.
• Format — ## heading with date + one-line summary, bolded change-type leads (**Behavior change**, **Added**) each on their own line. Matches the established pattern in the rest of the file. (Note: §4.5 nominally lists Breaking / Deprecated / Added, but Behavior change is the de-facto convention already used throughout this changelog, so this is consistent.)
• Emphasis/backticks (§2.9) — code values (status: "failure", metadata.reorg, data.inTxs[], field names) are correctly backticked; no stray italics.
• Terminology (§5) — Base uses canonical casing; no onchain/API key violations in the new text.
• Frontmatter unchanged and valid.

🟡 Worth a second look before marking ready

1. Heading vs. body scope mismatch — is this Base-only? The heading reads generically ("Reorged deposit transactions report failure on inTxs[]"), but the body scopes the behavior to "reorged out or canonically failed on Base." If reorg/finality detection currently only runs on Base, that's worth making explicit in the heading so integrators on other chains don't assume the guarantee applies to them. If it's actually chain-agnostic, then "on Base" reads like an internal implementation detail that leaked in (review-checklist item Add sdk method docs #2) and should be dropped. Please confirm which it is.

2. source (detector component) field — documenting that the metadata.reorg.source field exists is fine, but make sure the values that field can return aren't internal service/component names. The description "(detector component)" is safe; just flag if any concrete sample values get added later.

3. Paragraph length (§2.10) — the **Behavior change** paragraph is three sentences but the middle one is long. This matches the density of the surrounding entries (the whole changelog runs dense single-paragraph entries), so I'd leave it as-is for consistency rather than split it.

Links

The new entry adds no internal links, so there's nothing new to resolve. (GET /requests/v2 is referenced as inline code only, consistent with the existing 2026-05-27 entry — no broken link introduced.)

---

Verdict: Structurally solid and style-compliant. The one substantive item is the Base-scoping question (#1) — that's a content-accuracy call only the source-PR author can confirm. No code changes made (review only).