docs(ci): refresh stale bgfx comments after the extraction

[apotema]

Follow-up to #422 (CodeRabbit minor): the examples-integration job's preambles still referenced the removed bgfx-build/bgfx-android-build jobs and the old bgfx external-fetch step. Updated to point at labelle-bgfx (owns bgfx's build/test) and describe the agnostic nullfixture external step. Comment-only.

Also: CodeRabbit's Major 'restore the fingerprint patch' note on #422 was verified a false positive — the generated project's build.zig.zon carries a real fingerprint (0xa8ee77a3…), and a clean fresh-cache zig build of external-null succeeds without any patch (the patch the bgfx/null steps carry is vestigial for this path).

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Clarified inline comments in the CI workflow to better explain the “Examples integration test” job.
  • Updated notes around bundled example code generation and external backend handling to more clearly describe what this job covers and what is handled elsewhere.

[gemini-code-assist]

Note

Gemini is unable to generate a review for this pull request due to the file types involved not being currently supported.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 996afd1d-2018-47ba-9f5e-2f240b54ffad

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6bd20aa and a7d0167.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/workflows/ci.yml

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Two comment blocks in .github/workflows/ci.yml within the "Examples integration test" job are reworded. No workflow steps, commands, or CI logic are changed.

CI Comment Updates

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Reworded job comments .github/workflows/ci.yml	The wgpu-example comment is updated to clarify bgfx is handled by labelle-bgfx's own CI; the external backend wiring comment is rewritten to describe the .backend_package fetch→stage→codegen→build pipeline using nullfixture and note that the step bypasses labelle-cli.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• labelle-toolkit/labelle-assembler#413: Introduced the "Examples integration test" job whose comments are being reworded in this PR.
• labelle-toolkit/labelle-assembler#415: CI changes validating the de-vendored labelle-bgfx out-of-tree staging pipeline, directly related to the clarified comment scope.

Poem

A rabbit hops through workflow lines,
Tidying comments, realigning signs.
"bgfx lives elsewhere," the note now reads,
nullfixture handles the headless needs.
No steps were harmed in this gentle spree! 🐇

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly summarizes the comment-only CI docs update after the bgfx extraction.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch chore/ci-stale-bgfx-comments

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}