docs(drift): draft from internal source

[pedromcunha]

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

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.

[github-actions]

Claude finished @pedromcunha's task in 1m 4s —— View job

---

Code Review — PR #351

• Gather context (read diff + full page)
• Review against CLAUDE.md style rules
• Check content accuracy & cross-references
• Post review feedback

---

This PR adds a referrer field to the webhook example payload in references/api/api_guides/webhooks.mdx plus a one-paragraph explanation. Overall it's a clean, well-scoped change that conforms to the style guide. A few small notes below.

✅ What looks good

• Field is real and consistent. referrer is an established quote-request field elsewhere in the docs (features/deposit-addresses.mdx:1220, references/api/api_core_concepts/input-validation.mdx:27, refunds.mdx), so documenting it echoed back on the webhook payload is consistent with existing usage.
• Style conformance. This page is an API integration guide (§3.3b, treated like a feature guide). The new prose paragraph is 2 sentences (within the §2.10 2–3 sentence cap), uses backticks correctly for the field name and null (§2.9), and keeps active voice (§2.3).
• Placement. The explanatory paragraph sits naturally between the example payload and the existing details/failReason/refundFailReason paragraph.

🔸 Minor nits (non-blocking)

1. Redundancy between inline comment and prose. The JSON comment on line 57 (//nullable — echoes the referrer supplied on the originating quote request) and the prose on line 65 (echoes the value supplied on the originating quote request, or null...) say nearly the same thing. Consider trimming the inline comment to just //nullable and letting the prose carry the explanation, matching how the other //nullable fields above are annotated tersely.

2. Placeholder casing. The example value "your-referrer" is illustrative, but §2.8 placeholders are all-caps snake_case (YOUR_API_KEY, etc.). The surrounding payload uses 0x... placeholders. Not strictly a placeholder-the-reader-types, so this is borderline — but "YOUR_REFERRER" or a realistic value (the existing docs use e.g. "relay.link/swap") would read more consistently.

   Fix this →

📋 For the human reviewer (per the draft checklist)

• Accuracy: Please confirm the referrer field is actually emitted on request.status.updated webhook payloads (and that it is null rather than omitted when no referrer was supplied) — this draft came from an internal source and the field shape can't be verified from the public docs alone.
• No internal-only details (service names, file paths) appear to have leaked.
• Cross-references on the page (/references/api/get-intents-status-v3) are unchanged and resolve.
  • Branch: docs-drift/src-e75dd20fcc-44c100b

[mintlify]

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

Project	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
unevenlabs	🟢 Ready	View Preview	Jun 30, 2026, 5:13 PM

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