[Planeshifter]

Resolves stdlib-js/todo#2802.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• adds a Git note (docs/git-notes/bbd35c47bea4a1d9bd5a1867ba0d370e4e929c9c.txt) amending the commit message of bbd35c4, whose subject line references a nonexistent package name. The commit (via PR feat: add stats/incr/incrnanmae #6065) added the package @stdlib/stats/incr/nanmae, but the commit message reads feat: add `stats/incr/incrnanmae`. The note corrects the subject to feat: add `stats/incr/nanmae` while preserving all other message content and trailers verbatim, so that changelog generation resolves to the actual package.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• stdlib-js/todo#2802

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

• The note file follows the exact format produced by the git_note_amend_message workflow (type: amend-message front matter followed by the full replacement message) and was verified to apply cleanly via the apply-git-notes make recipe's git notes add -f -F command.
• The message body is byte-identical to the original commit message except for the package-name correction in the subject line; all trailers (PR-URL, Closes, Co-authored-by, Reviewed-by) are preserved verbatim.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

This PR was written by Claude Code: it researched the repository's Git-note conventions and generated the note file directly from the original commit message with the package-name correction applied.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01XfT3fTJp9QWRLoey5pcmb3

---

Generated by Claude Code

[Planeshifter]

Reviewer context: verification log for this change

Distilled working notes from the automated loop that produced this PR, for reviewer convenience.

What was verified

• Original message captured verbatim via git log -1 --format=%B bbd35c47bea4a1d9bd5a1867ba0d370e4e929c9c; the note body is byte-identical to it except stats/incr/incrnanmae → stats/incr/nanmae in the subject line. All trailers (PR-URL, Closes, both Co-authored-by, Reviewed-by) preserved verbatim, same blank-line placement.
• Correction is factually right: lib/node_modules/@stdlib/stats/incr/nanmae exists (added by this very commit, PR feat: add stats/incr/incrnanmae #6065); no incrnanmae package exists anywhere in the tree.
• Format matches conventions: filename is the full 40-char hash + .txt as required by tools/make/lib/git/notes.mk; front matter is byte-identical to the heredoc in .github/workflows/git_note_amend_message.yml and to the existing type: amend-message notes in docs/git-notes/; LF-only, single trailing newline (the dominant pattern across all 84 existing note files).
• Applies cleanly: dry-ran the Makefile's exact git notes add -f -F <file> <hash> command (twice, independently — once against a throwaway GIT_NOTES_REF); content round-trips via git notes show. Also traced the changelog consumer (@stdlib/_tools/changelog/parse-commits): the front matter parses and the amend-message branch substitutes the message correctly.
• Commit message follows the workflow's convention: docs: add Git note for commit <hash>.
• Branch hygiene: branch is exactly develop HEAD + this one commit; the diff is the single new file.

Review passes

Five independent adversarial review agents (correctness, test quality, conventions, security/robustness, issue scope) reviewed the final diff: zero blockers, zero major findings.

Observations logged but deliberately not addressed here (out of scope)

Pre-existing hardening opportunities in the consuming tooling, untouched by this diff — noted in case maintainers want follow-up issues:

1. apply-git-notes (tools/make/lib/git/notes.mk) derives the commit hash from the filename without validating ^[0-9a-f]{40}$, and soft-fails (|| echo ...) so a bad hash would be swallowed silently.
2. The amend-message branch in _tools/changelog/parse-commits/lib/commits.js is not exercised by its tests, and its front-matter extraction would truncate on a message body legitimately containing a --- line (not the case here).
3. No lint validates docs/git-notes/*.txt (filename hash validity, known type, commitlint conformance of the amended message).

Open questions

None.

---

Generated by Claude Code