docs: correct the README snippet, the package-count leftovers and the STmin paragraph

[dborgards]

What does this change?

Documentation fixes from the deep review (§ 3 and § 6 item 5):

• B11 — The root README's "Two minutes" snippet used view => view.IsExtendedFrame; the predicate is over CanFrameEvent. Now e => e.Frame.IsExtendedFrame, and the comment describes what Frames yields.
• B14 — SECURITY.md (four → nine packages), CONTRIBUTING.md (commit scopes for all nine packages; the remark that code carries a Chinese translation, which no file under src/ or tests/ does), the feature-request template (one option per package), docs/migration-from-legacy.md (versions all nine together), THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md (polyfills are referenced by six packages, not only RawCan; GitVersion is the gitversion.tool local tool, not GitVersion.MsBuild).
• IsoTp README: the STmin timing paragraph still describes a wall-clock measurement the test no longer makes #246 — The IsoTp README no longer claims a measured ±1 ms or a wall-clock test; it says what IsoTpStminTimingTests verifies and that the accuracy is a target.

Left alone on purpose: the remaining "four" in the migration and licensing documents refer to the four libraries that came from the legacy fork, which is historical and correct.

Open for the maintainer: docs/requirements/SRS-CanKit.Pro.md NFR-003 still demands a ±1 ms accuracy verified by a measured integration test. The suite does not measure it. Rewording the requirement (or adding a measurement) changes what the traceability check holds the code to, so I did not touch it here.

Type of change

• feat — new behaviour (minor release)
• fix / perf — bug or performance fix (patch release)
• docs / test / refactor / chore / ci — no release
• Breaking change (! in the title, plus a BREAKING CHANGE: footer explaining the migration)

Checklist

• dotnet build CanKit.Pro.sln -c Release succeeds (documentation only, not run)
• dotnet test CanKit.Pro.sln -c Release passes (documentation only, not run)
• Public API changes are documented with XML comments (none)
• New behaviour is covered by a test (none)
• The requirement or ADR this relates to is referenced (NFR-003, IsoTp README: the STmin timing paragraph still describes a wall-clock measurement the test no longer makes #246)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
Markdown and template edits only; no runtime, API, or security behavior changes.

Overview
Documentation-only alignment after a deep review: fixes stale “four package” references, commit scopes, and an incorrect README sample.

The root README “Two minutes” snippet now subscribes with e => e.Frame.IsExtendedFrame (predicate is on CanFrameEvent) and the comment describes CanFrameEvent instead of CanFrameView.

Package count and tooling are updated across SECURITY.md, migration-from-legacy.md, CONTRIBUTING.md (Conventional Commit scopes for isotp, j1939, j1939tp, uds, canopen), the feature request template (one layer option per L3/L4 package), and THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES (BCL polyfills on six packages; GitVersion as gitversion.tool, not GitVersion.MsBuild). CONTRIBUTING also drops the claim that public XML docs include Chinese translations—English only for new code.

The IsoTp README STmin section no longer asserts measured ±1 ms wall-clock accuracy or a CI integration measurement; it states OS scheduling limits, that IsoTpStminTimingTests uses a test-driven clock for logic, and that NFR-003’s accuracy figure is a target.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 0ffcf53. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-03T07:55:43.539050Z	0983869	PR opened

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 09838694ce

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!