Document v2 receiver trustline preflight and token errors

[armandocodecr]

Reflects Trustless-Work/trustlesswork-core-api#42, now merged.

Changes

• Receiver trustline preflight (api/v2/core-concepts.md): which addresses each endpoint checks before building the transaction, and the ESCROW_RECEIVER_TRUSTLINE_MISSING (422) response with its real Problem Details shape (extensions.missing, with trustline-missing / account-missing reasons).
  • Single-release deploy / update: roles.receiver, plus roles.platform when platformFee > 0.
  • Multi-release deploy: every milestone receiver, plus the fee-earning platform.
  • Multi-release update: only the fee-earning platform, since the payload's milestones are ignored on-chain.
  • Multi-release manage-milestones: every new milestone receiver.
• Token errors (api/v2/core-concepts.md): errors raised by the escrow's token contract now surface as TOKEN_* codes, with their HTTP status and the error-page URL pattern. Before this, a fund signer without a trustline got ESCROW_PLATFORM_FEE_TOO_HIGH; it now gets TOKEN_TRUSTLINE_MISSING.
• Short pointers to both sections in the single- and multi-release deploy / fund / update / manage-milestones sections, in constitution.md (Article IV.2) and in the SKILL.md trustline gotcha.
• Removed receiverMemo from the deploy and update payload examples and from the type rules. It is hidden from the API's Swagger on those inputs (commit 2acface). The versioned read response still returns it, so that example is unchanged.

scripts/check-consistency.sh passes.

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: c93e4ce3-60cf-4002-84fe-758888dd3e21

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[techrebelgit]

I patched the trustline timing wording directly on this PR branch in 950ad7b.

The constitution now states the narrower invariant: an address must already hold the asset trustline when that address is validated/introduced. That preserves valid flows where a trustline is created after the escrow itself was deployed but before a future receiver is added via manage-milestones, while still requiring funders to have the trustline before fund.

No other PR content was changed. The Docs consistency Action still fails before executing any steps, so that remains a separate CI issue rather than a docs finding.

[techrebelgit]

Reviewed against the merged Core API trustline preflight/error attribution behavior, including the corrected trustline timing invariant in 950ad7b. Content is aligned with implementation.