Make contribution quality review proportional

[hamzamerzic]

Summary

• require a deliberate self-review before publishing a contribution, right-sized to the actual change
• separate slop removal from structural review while keeping unrelated refactors out of scope
• treat size, ownership, state, and abstraction concerns as review signals rather than context-free blockers
• keep declined internal review findings in private evidence instead of narrating process in public PR bodies
• align review-followup guidance with the same proportional boundary

Why

This preserves the useful intent of #24 while avoiding a mandatory ambitious audit for trivial changes, arbitrary treatment of generated or prose-heavy files, and scope-expanding refactors. It also keeps internal process notes out of public contribution copy.

Authorship credit: the original policy contribution was authored by @eldarc. This reviewed replacement carries that original commit forward and supersedes #24 with a proportional version.

Validation

• 131 JavaScript tests passed (8 component-render tests skipped because this docs-only worktree has no platform frontend dependency tree)
• 7 Python tests passed
• manifest and package versions agree at 0.5.10
• whitespace and privacy checks passed

[hamzamerzic]

Superseded by the reviewed integration in #33, which preserves this PR's commits and authorship. Thank you — the combined change is now on main.