docs: clarify no_std support policy

[sandersaares]

[Copilot speaking]

Summary

• treats adoption or expansion of no_std support as optional when it would add disproportionate implementation complexity
• defines every documented no_std configuration as a real compatibility promise rather than best-effort support
• requires supported configurations to work correctly, be covered by CI, and document their prerequisites and target boundary

Validation

• just spellcheck

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Updates the repository’s contributor/agent guidance to clarify the intended policy around no_std support, setting expectations for implementation complexity and for aligning documentation/CI with what the crate actually promises.

Changes:

• Adds a dedicated no_std support policy section to AGENTS guidance.
• Clarifies that no_std is best-effort and should not drive complex cfg branching or specialized fallbacks for constrained targets.
• Requires public docs and CI coverage to match explicitly supported configurations/prerequisites.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.0%. Comparing base (c1df038) to head (765b879).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #618   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   100.0%   100.0%           
=======================================
  Files         470      470           
  Lines       45251    45251           
=======================================
  Hits        45251    45251           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

[Vaiz]

this clarification is only for agents. what about developers? do they also have to follow it?

[sandersaares]

this clarification is only for agents. what about developers? do they also have to follow it?

The way I see it, we are in a world where the agents are the developers.