Add clap and async-trait as tool owned dependencies

[Hinton]

🎟️ Tracking

📔 Objective

Title.

⏰ Reminders before review

• Contributor guidelines followed
• All formatters and local linters executed and passed
• Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
• Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
• Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
• CI builds passed
• Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
• Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

• 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
• 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
• ❓ (:question:) for questions
• 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
• 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
• ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
• 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
• ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

[claude]

Claude finished @Hinton's task —— View job

---

Code Review

Summary

The code changes are correct and follow the established pattern in the renovate configuration. The additions of async-trait and clap are properly alphabetized within the Tools team's dependency list.

Findings

Finding 1: PR description lacks essential information (💭)

The PR description provides minimal context beyond "Title." While the change is straightforward, consider enriching future PRs with:

Suggested improvements

Objective section could include:

• Brief explanation of why these dependencies need tool ownership (e.g., "These Rust dependencies are used by CLI tools and require dedicated team review for updates")
• Context on what these packages do (clap is a CLI argument parser, async-trait enables async methods in traits)

Test Plan could include:

• Verification that renovate configuration is valid JSON5
• Confirmation that these packages will now route to the correct team for review

Finding 2: Missing Jira reference (💭)

The ## 🎟️ Tracking section is empty. If this change is associated with a ticket or initiative, linking it would provide helpful context for future reference.

---

Technical Review

✅ Configuration syntax: Valid JSON5, properly formatted
✅ Alphabetization: Both async-trait and clap are correctly placed in alphabetical order within the Tools owned dependencies list (.github/renovate.json5:366-367)
✅ Pattern consistency: Follows the established pattern for team-owned dependency management
✅ Team routing: Correctly assigns these Rust crates to team:team-tools-dev with appropriate commit message prefix [deps] Tools:

The technical implementation is solid with no issues found.

---

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – 6407acb7-c709-4f2e-851c-b21e0f302785

Great job! No new security vulnerabilities introduced in this pull request

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 41.24%. Comparing base (d98234c) to head (a1e3b85).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17579      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   41.25%   41.24%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        3546     3546              
  Lines      102062   102068       +6     
  Branches    15314    15314              
==========================================
- Hits        42109    42102       -7     
- Misses      58189    58202      +13     
  Partials     1764     1764              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.