fix(coding-dev): scoped suppressions, contribution-dependent precedence

- suppressions: prefer the narrowest scope that covers the problem (line,
  function, module) with a reason comment; a project-wide disable silences
  the rule in code nobody has written yet. Always name the specific rule.
  Propagated to rust (#[allow]), csharp (#pragma/SuppressMessage).
- precedence: a project's own rules win only when contributing upstream.
  For local/private work these rules win, adopting only the project's
  load-bearing conventions.
- type checking must pass with zero errors *or warnings*.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

code-languages/csharp-dotnet.md

@@ -37,8 +37,11 @@ dotnet build MySolution.sln -warnaserror
 - **Nullable warnings are real bugs.** Never silence one with `!` (null-forgiving) — narrow
   the type or fix the contract. `!` is an assertion, and an assertion you cannot prove is a
   future `NullReferenceException`.
-- Never blanket-disable an analyzer. If a rule is genuinely wrong for the codebase, configure
+- Never blanket-disable an analyzer. When a rule is genuinely wrong for a piece of code,
-  it once in `.editorconfig` with a comment.
+  scope the suppression to it — `#pragma warning disable CA1822` around the smallest region
+  that needs it (with a matching `restore`), or a targeted `[SuppressMessage]` attribute —
+  and always with a `Justification` / comment saying why. An `.editorconfig` entry turns the
+  rule off for every file it covers; use it only when the rule is wrong codebase-wide.
 
 ---
 

code-languages/js-typescript.md

@@ -43,13 +43,14 @@ into a project that has neither.
 }
 ```
 
-**`tsc --noEmit` must pass with 0 errors**, and it belongs in the build gate alongside lint
+**`tsc --noEmit` must pass with zero errors *and* zero warnings**, and it belongs in the build
-and tests — not as a thing someone runs occasionally in their editor.
+gate alongside lint and tests — not as a thing someone runs occasionally in their editor.
 
 > [!NOTE]
 > Some established codebases deliberately relax `noImplicitAny` or `noUncheckedIndexedAccess`
-> because their idioms depend on it. Respect the project's `tsconfig.json`; the table above is
+> because their idioms depend on it. When **contributing upstream**, respect the project's
-> the default for **new** projects.
+> `tsconfig.json` as-is. In **our own repos and non-upstreamed forks**, the settings above are
+> the target — tightening them is fair game (as its own change, not smuggled into a feature).
 
 ---
 

code-languages/rust.md

@@ -61,8 +61,17 @@ workspace = true
 > carries a second copy that drifts — which is how a binary once kept reading its own stale
 > allows while the workspace's were being actively edited.
 
-- **Never `#[allow]` on a whim.** If a lint is genuinely wrong for the codebase, allow it
+- **Never `#[allow]` on a whim** — but when a lint is genuinely wrong for a piece of code,
-  **workspace-wide** with a comment explaining why, so the decision is visible.
+  **allow it at the narrowest scope that covers it** (the expression, the function, the
+  module) with a comment saying why:
+  ```rust
+  // The FFI callback signature is fixed by the C API; we cannot take fewer arguments.
+  #[allow(clippy::too_many_arguments)]
+  extern "C" fn on_event(/* … */) { }
+  ```
+- A **workspace-wide** allow in `[workspace.lints]` is for the rare case where the lint is
+  wrong for the *entire* codebase — not a shortcut for one stubborn call site. It silences
+  the rule in code nobody has written yet.
 - **Re-test every `#[allow]` periodically.** If removing one produces no warning, delete it.
 - `too_many_lines` is the mechanical enforcement of the 100-line function limit. A function
   that trips it wants extracting, not an allow.

coding-dev.md

@@ -14,9 +14,17 @@ These are the defaults for **all** code work, in any language. They are preferen
 reasons attached, not style trivia — most exist because ignoring them caused a real problem.
 
 > [!IMPORTANT]
-> **A project's own rules win.** If a repository has an `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, `AGENT.md`,
+> **Whose rules win depends on where the code is going.** Always read a repository's
-> `.rules`, or `CONTRIBUTING.md`, read it first — it is more specific than this document and
+> `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, `AGENT.md`, `.rules`, or `CONTRIBUTING.md` first — but what you do
-> overrides it on conflict. This file is the default for everything those files do not say.
+> on a conflict differs:
+>
+> | Situation | Precedence |
+> | :--- | :--- |
+> | **Contributing upstream** — a PR, a patch, or anything landing in someone else's repo | **The project's rules win.** Match their conventions exactly, even where they contradict this document. A PR that fights the house style gets rejected on style instead of reviewed on substance. |
+> | **Local / private work** — our own repos, forks we don't upstream, private branches, local patches | **These rules win.** A project's conventions are a data point, not an obligation. Adopt the ones that are load-bearing (their build gate, their architecture contracts, anything that breaks if ignored) and apply our own preferences for the rest. |
+>
+> When in doubt about which mode you are in, **ask** — it changes the answer on strictness,
+> file size, typing, and test policy all at once.
 
 Per-language specifics live in [`code-languages/`](./code-languages/):
 
@@ -39,10 +47,15 @@ Strict mode is the starting point, not an aspiration to migrate toward later.
 
 - Warnings are errors in CI and in the build gate (`-warnaserror`, `-D warnings`, `--strict`).
 - Enable the pedantic/extra lint tiers, not just the defaults.
-- Type checking must pass with **zero** errors — `tsc --noEmit`, `mypy`, `cargo check` alike.
+- Type checking must pass with **zero errors or warnings** — `tsc --noEmit`, `mypy`,
+  `cargo check` alike.
 - Never weaken a check to make a build pass. Fix the failing step. If a check is genuinely
-  wrong for the codebase, disable it **project-wide in one place with a comment explaining
+  wrong for a specific piece of code, **suppress it at the narrowest scope that covers the
-  why**, so the decision is visible and reviewable — never with a scattered inline suppression.
+  problem — the line, the function, or the module — with a comment explaining why.** A
+  project-wide disable is a bigger hammer than it looks: it silences the rule everywhere,
+  including in code written later by someone who never saw the reason. Reach for it only when
+  the rule is genuinely wrong for the *whole* codebase, never as a shortcut for a stubborn
+  call site.
 
 ### Suppressions are a last resort, and they expire
 
@@ -50,9 +63,14 @@ Strict mode is the starting point, not an aspiration to migrate toward later.
 - When you do suppress one, **say so explicitly in your report to the user** — name the
   warning, where it is, and why it could not be fixed. A silent suppression is the failure
   mode this rule exists to prevent.
-- **Re-test suppressions periodically.** Removing an `#[allow]` / `// eslint-disable` /
+- **Every suppression carries a comment saying why.** A bare `#[allow]` / `// eslint-disable`
-  `#pragma warning disable` that no longer suppresses anything should produce no warning —
+  / `# noqa` with no reason is indistinguishable from someone giving up, and nobody will ever
-  if it doesn't, delete it. Stale suppressions accumulate and hide real regressions.
+  dare remove it.
+- **Name the specific rule**, never a blanket suppression: `# noqa: S603`, not `# noqa`;
+  `//nolint:errcheck`, not `//nolint`.
+- **Re-test suppressions periodically.** Removing one that no longer suppresses anything
+  should produce no warning — if it doesn't, delete it. Stale suppressions accumulate and
+  hide real regressions.
 
 ---