[anth-volk]

Fixes #952

Same-Repository Draft PR Check

• This PR is a draft.
• This PR is from a branch in PolicyEngine/policyengine-sim-api, not a personal fork.

Summary

The docs implied GitHub won't merge a change to the rule files until a core developer approves it. The default branch's ruleset (main, id 3680274) doesn't require that. It requires:

• a pull request with one approving review, from anyone with write access;
• passing CI complete and PR description checks.

Its require_code_owner_review is false, so CODEOWNERS only makes GitHub request a review from @PolicyEngine/core-developers on pull requests that change those paths and aren't drafts. This PR corrects the docs and leaves the ruleset unchanged.

• sim.process.rule-machinery-code-owned statement in rules/registry.toml. The first sentence, which says what the rule asks for, is unchanged. A second sentence says it's a team convention GitHub doesn't enforce, and gives what the ruleset needs. The rule stays doc-only.
• scripts/rules/tests/test_code_owner_rule.py, new. It reads the registry and checks that the statement still asks for the same approval, that the rule stays doc-only, and that the statement says GitHub doesn't enforce it.
• docs/generated/rules.md and the AGENTS.md rules block, regenerated with python -m scripts.rules render.
• .github/CODEOWNERS comment. It said changes "need review from a core developer" and that files left out "are not blocked". It now says core-developer approval is a team convention, gives what the ruleset enforces, and says the listing only adds a review request. This is a prose-only edit: no check reads the comment.

Left unchanged:

• docs/engineering/skills/type-checking.md: Fix apis-integ's Pyright errors and enforce every Pyright rule #877 already corrected it.
• The rule's id, which still ends in code-owned: renaming it would remove one rule and add another.
• The changelog_entry.yaml entry "Added CODEOWNERS for the rule machinery", which is still accurate.

Commits (red, then green)

1. Test that the code-owner rule says GitHub doesn't enforce it. Red: of the 3 new tests, test_rule_says_github_does_not_require_code_owner_review fails. The rules guard passes.
2. Say in the code-owner rule that GitHub doesn't enforce it. The 3 tests pass. Red for the generated files: the rules guard fails with "docs/generated/rules.md is stale" and "the rules block in AGENTS.md is stale".
3. Regenerate the rules docs for the code-owner rule's statement. Green: the 3 tests and the rules guard pass.
4. Say in the CODEOWNERS comment that GitHub doesn't require code owners. Prose only. The tests and the rules guard still pass.

Testing

Each commit was checked out on its own and run with the code-owner rule tests and python -m scripts.rules guard --base-ref origin/main, with the results above. At the head commit:

• ruff 0.15.22 (the CI pin): ruff format --check projects/*/src libs/*/src and ruff check . pass, and the new test file is formatted.
• python scripts/run_quality_guards.py: pass.
• python -m scripts.rules guard --base-ref origin/main: pass.
• python -m scripts.rules render: no diff.
• python -m unittest discover -s scripts/rules/tests -t .: 249 tests pass.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code