docs/designs/gateway-triggers/wp/WP0-specs.md (1)

40-52: ⚡ Quick win

Contracts are clearly frozen; verify the usage return type and shape.

The ConnectionsGatewayInterface contracts are explicit and well-defined. One minor clarity point: line 49 specifies usage(*, project_id, connection_id) -> Usage with comment "used by tools / N subs", but the return type name Usage is not defined in the contract block. For implementability, specify the shape (e.g., Usage: { used_by_tools: bool, subscription_count: int } or similar).

Proposed clarification

 ```text
 ConnectionsGatewayInterface:
   initiate_connection(*, project_id, provider, integration, ...) -> Connection
   get_connection_status(*, project_id, connection_id) -> Status
   refresh_connection(*, project_id, connection_id) -> Connection
   revoke_connection(*, project_id, connection_id) -> None          # revoke-for-everyone (C7)
   list_connections(*, project_id, ...) -> list[Connection]          # backs /tools|/triggers/connections
-  usage(*, project_id, connection_id) -> Usage                      # "used by tools / N subs"
+  usage(*, project_id, connection_id) -> Usage                      # "used by tools / N subs"
 Connection DTO: { id (ca_*), project_id, provider, integration, slug, status, ... }
+Usage DTO: { used_by_tools: bool, subscription_count: int }         # or similar
 gateway_connections columns: (unchanged from tool_connections; already domain-neutral)

Alternatively, inline the shape in the return type annotation.
</details>

<!-- cr-comment:v1:8193eb9a098ee8a5b62c45a9 -->

</blockquote></details>
<details>
<summary>docs/designs/gateway-triggers/wp/WP1-specs.md (1)</summary><blockquote>

`34-42`: _💤 Low value_

**Clarify EventType vs Event DTO naming in the contracts.**

The contracts section uses `EventType` (line 36) as the return type for `get_event()`, but the DTO section (line 41) labels it `Event DTO`. This is a minor naming inconsistency that could cause confusion during implementation. Clarify whether the type is `Event` or `EventType` and use it consistently throughout.





<details>
<summary>Proposed clarification</summary>

```diff
 ```text
 TriggersGatewayInterface:
   list_events(*, provider, integration) -> list[Event]
-  get_event(*, event_key) -> EventType            # carries trigger_config JSON Schema
+  get_event(*, event_key) -> Event                # carries trigger_config JSON Schema
   create_subscription(*, project_id, event_key, connected_account_id, trigger_config) -> "ti_*"
   set_subscription_status(*, trigger_id, enabled: bool) -> None
   delete_subscription(*, trigger_id) -> None
 Catalog HTTP: GET /triggers/catalog/providers/{p}/integrations/{i}/events[/{event_key}]
 Event DTO: { key, provider, integration, trigger_config: <JSONSchema>, ... }

Alternatively, clarify the distinction if `EventType` and `Event` are intentionally different types.
</details>

<!-- cr-comment:v1:b13a049fd2849e5b7b3f8992 -->

</blockquote></details>
<details>
<summary>docs/designs/gateway-triggers/wp/WP2-specs.md (1)</summary><blockquote>

`35-37`: _💤 Low value_

**Clarify functional deps statement — WP2 sequences after WP1 but declares "None in-feature."**

The functional deps section states "None in-feature. Root in the §1 DAG," but the header (line 3) shows WP2 anchors WL1 (the WP1 branch). This appears contradictory: WP2 is sequenced after WP1 in the lane structure, yet has no feature-level dependencies. For clarity, rephrase to note that WP2 has no *feature-specific* dependencies (it reshuffles existing webhook code, independent of trigger architecture), but its sequencing follows WP1 for organizational/testing purposes.





<details>
<summary>Proposed clarification</summary>

```diff
 ## Functional deps
 
-None in-feature. Root in the §1 DAG.
+None on WP0/WP1 feature work. (WP2 refactors existing webhook code, independent of
+trigger architecture, but is sequenced after WP1 for integration/testing purposes per the
+lane structure in plan.md.)

Or, if "Root in the §1 DAG" means work-package DAG (distinct from lane sequencing), clarify that distinction in the preamble or cite plan.md §X more precisely.

docs/designs/gateway-triggers/gap.md (1)

131-140: 💤 Low value

Refactor the out-of-scope list to reduce repeated sentence openings.

The seven bullets all begin with "No", which violates ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE.

Example restructuring: combine related non-goals into compound sentences or vary the phrasing (e.g., "The outbound webhooks domain is unchanged" instead of "- No merge with / routing through...").

docs/designs/gateway-triggers/proposal.md (1)

76-98: 💤 Low value

Refactor the non-goals list to reduce repeated sentence openings.

Similar to the out-of-scope section in gap.md, the nine non-goals begin with "Not" or "No", which creates repetitive phrasing (flagged by ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE).

Consolidate or vary phrasing: e.g., "The outbound webhooks domain and workflow hooks are unchanged; triggers are a separate inbound domain" (combines lines 78–84) or "Triggers invoke workflows through the existing WorkflowsService seam; we do not build a parallel runner" (lines 90–91).

docs/designs/gateway-triggers/research.md (1)

289-289: 💤 Low value

Minor Markdown formatting: Remove blank line in blockquote (MD028).

Line 289 has a blank line inside a blockquote block, which violates the no-blanks-blockquote rule. This is cosmetic but worth fixing for Markdown linting compliance.

docs/designs/gateway-triggers/wp/WL-runbook.md (1)

128-128: 💤 Low value

Add language specifier to the fenced code block (MD040).

The code fence at line 128 is missing a language tag. Since the content is a draft PR body (Markdown), specify ```markdown or use a blank ``` (if the intent is plain text without syntax highlighting).

docs/designs/gateway-triggers/wp/WP5-status.md (1)

70-70: 💤 Low value

Minor style improvement: replace "exactly" with a synonym.

The word "exactly" is flagged by LanguageTool as overused. Consider replacing it with "precisely" or restructuring the sentence for clarity. For example: "This is the WP0 dep WS5 stubs until it merges" (removing the adverb entirely) or "This replaces the WP0 dep WS5 stubs once it merges."

📝 Proposed wording alternative

- shared rows). This is exactly the WP0 dep WS5 stubs until it merges; unit tests cover the
+ shared rows). This is the WP0 dep WS5 stubs until it merges; unit tests cover the