Trigger Design

Trigger on meaningful legal events#

A trigger should correspond to a real legal-operations signal: intake form received, source document uploaded, attorney review approved, correspondence received, or a deadline approaching. When triggers are based on vague or noisy events, legal workflows become harder to predict.

Do not design triggers around court docket updates or case-law alerts unless you add that integration yourself. Matruno does not ship those connectors.

Make triggers idempotent#

External systems retry. Webhooks arrive twice. Schedulers overlap. Design trigger handling so the same input does not create duplicate matters or tasks. Use stable external identifiers, the repository's webhook idempotency fields, and recorded delivery state where possible.

Surface failed trigger evaluations#

Not every event should produce work. But rejected or failed trigger handling should leave enough evidence for legal operators to understand whether the system behaved correctly. Matruno has audit logs, webhook delivery records, external tool execution traces, automation execution logs, and Temporal workflow histories that can support this when wired into the path.