[Klaud Cold][DO NOT MERGE] Test codeowner-signoff-verify checklist alignment

[functionstackx]

Summary

• Trivial README touch to host a CODEOWNER sign-off comment and verify the updated codeowner-signoff-verify workflow from [Klaud Cold] Align codeowner-signoff-verify with latest PR_REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md #2015 (new checks 5-8 aligned with PR_REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md).
• Will be closed without merging once the verification comment is confirmed.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[functionstackx]

As a PR reviewer and CODEOWNER, I have reviewed this and have:

• Verified that as of the moment of typing this, this is the latest version of PR_REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md
• Verified that the general code quality meets the InferenceX standard and does not make the code quality any worse.
• Verified that this PR has passed PR validation. Please link to GitHub Action workflow that shows this.
• Verified that this PR passes evals. Please link to GitHub Action workflow that shows this.
• Verified that speculative decoding PRs uses chat templates to align the AL distribution to real world
• Verified that the model architecture isn't changed with benchmark hacks like using --hf-overrides to skipping indexer for every x layers on models that don't natively support this. As a general rule, we won't accept optimizations that reduces the number of model architecture FLOPs. Anything that makes that same computation run faster is fair game; FLOPs at lower precisions is fine, given that the config passes private evals. As an general north star princple, we should only use optimizations which is used in production by customers that care about accuracy
• If an company claims that they support vLLM/SGLang as first class LLM inference engines on their hardware, I have verified that the respective vLLM submission made using upstream https://hub.docker.com/u/vllm docker repo, upstream SGLang https://hub.docker.com/u/lmsysorg docker repo. The only exceptions are for new hardware, such as MI455X UALoE72, Vera Rubin NVL72, Rubin NVL8, etc., and for new model architectures where there is an actual reason why vLLM/SGLang does not fundamentally support them yet as supported by vLLM/SGLang community maintainers
• If an company claims that they support vLLM/SGLang as first class upstream in-tree LLM inference engines on their hardware, I have have verified that the respective vLLM/SGLang submission has been made before additional frameworks (TRT-LLM, ATOM, etc.). The only exceptions are for new hardware, such as MI455X UALoE72, Vera Rubin NVL72, Rubin NVL8, etc., and for new model architectures where there is an actual reason why vLLM/SGLang does not fundamentally support them yet.
• Verified that the single-node recipes are similar to the official vLLM recipes and/or theSGLang cookbook:
  • If they are not, I have verified that a PR has been opened in vLLM recipe repo or SGLang repo and linked it below in the additional detail section:
• If any of the above criteria cannot reasonably be satisfied, I have provided additional reasoning below.

Additional detail section:

• This is a workflow test sign-off on a docs-only test PR ([Klaud Cold][DO NOT MERGE] Test codeowner-signoff-verify checklist alignment #2016) to exercise the updated codeowner-signoff-verify checks from [Klaud Cold] Align codeowner-signoff-verify with latest PR_REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md #2015. Expected outcome: the verifier posts a verdict covering checks 0-8.

Signed: functionstackx

[Klaud-Cold]

@functionstackx Merge is blocked: no passing sweep/eval exists on any commit in this PR, and no authorized /reuse-sweep-run command has been posted.

• Check 0 (CODEOWNER): PASS — only changed path is README.md, owned solely by the catch-all @InferenceX/core; signer is an org MEMBER with no specific-path mismatch (team membership not readable by token, as expected).
• Check 1 (sweep on in-PR commit): FAIL — No passing sweep/eval was found on any commit in this PR. The sole commit 5c94756 has no single-node */ or eval / check-runs at all (only CodeQL/Claude Code Review). Run a full sweep on this commit or re-anchor one via /reuse-sweep-run.
• Check 2 (eval accuracy): FAIL — no eval run exists for any in-PR commit, so there are no eval results to verify (blocked by Check 1).
• Check 3 (recipe linked + args match): N/A — docs-only PR; no benchmarks/** or configs/*-master.yaml changes, so there is no recipe to link or compare.
• Check 4 (reuse command): FAIL — No authorized /reuse-sweep-run command has been posted on this PR; an OWNER/MEMBER/COLLABORATOR must comment /reuse-sweep-run before the PR can merge via reuse.
• Check 5 (latest checklist template): PASS — all 10 items of the current docs/PR_REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md are present and checked in the sign-off.
• Check 6 (upstream images / engine-first): N/A — no master-config entries added or changed.
• Check 7 (no architecture-reducing hacks): N/A — diff touches no server args or model config.
• Check 8 (spec-decode via chat templates): N/A — no speculative-decoding changes.

Note: PR is titled [DO NOT MERGE] and the sign-off states it is a workflow test; the failing checks above reflect the merge standard, consistent with that intent.

[functionstackx]

Verification confirmed — the updated workflow posted a verdict covering checks 0-8 as intended. Closing this test PR.