docs: align outliers in math/base/tools with namespace majority patterns

[Planeshifter]

Description

Aligning outliers in math/base/tools with namespace majority patterns (random namespace pick, seed 20260430).

This pull request adds the missing docs/repl.txt to the four *-compile* packages so that REPL help is available across the entire math/base/tools namespace, matching the dominant convention. New file content is derived deterministically from each package's existing JSDoc and TypeScript declarations; no source, behavior, or public API changes.

Namespace summary

• Target: math/base/tools
• Members analyzed: 17 (no autogenerated packages excluded)
• Features with a clear majority (≥75% conformance): file-tree presence (README.md, package.json, lib/index.js, lib/main.js, test/test.js, benchmark/benchmark.js, examples/index.js, docs/types/index.d.ts, docs/types/test.ts, docs/repl.txt), package.json top-level keys, returnKind, JSDoc @example / @returns presence
• Features without a clear majority (excluded from drift detection): publicSignature (genuinely heterogeneous — (c, x) evaluators vs (P, Q, x) rational vs (n, x) polynomial vs (generator, options) series), README L2 heading sequence, dependencies, lib/factory.js presence (65%), Notes section in README (71%)
• Features not applicable: validationPrologue and errorConstruction — no package in this namespace throws

math/base/tools/evalpoly-compile

Adds missing docs/repl.txt to bring the package in line with sibling convention — 13/17 (76%) of math/base/tools packages carry this file, including evalpoly itself. Content was derived directly from the existing JSDoc and TypeScript declarations for compile(c[, options]) with no behavior or API changes.

math/base/tools/evalpoly-compile-c

Adds missing docs/repl.txt to bring the package into conformance with the math/base/tools namespace, where 13/17 siblings (76%) carry this file. Content was derived directly from existing JSDoc and TypeScript declarations for compile(c[, options]) — no API or behavior change.

math/base/tools/evalrational-compile

Adds missing docs/repl.txt, flagged by the drift routine as absent in this package while present in 13/17 (76%) of math/base/tools siblings — including evalrational itself. The file was derived directly from existing JSDoc and TypeScript declarations for compile(P, Q[, options]); no behavior or API changes.

math/base/tools/evalrational-compile-c

Adds missing docs/repl.txt to bring the package into conformance with the math/base/tools namespace, where 13/17 siblings (76%) carry this file. Content was derived directly from the existing JSDoc and TypeScript declarations for compile(P, Q[, options]) — no API or behavior change.

Validation

What was checked:

• Structural feature extraction across all 17 members (file tree, package.json shape, README headings, test/benchmark/example layout)
• Semantic feature extraction via per-package agents reading lib/main.js / lib/index.js / lib/basic.js (publicSignature, returnKind, validationPrologue, errorConstruction, JSDoc shape, dependencies)
• Three-agent drift validation: opus semantic-review, opus cross-reference, sonnet structural-review

What was deliberately excluded:

• lib/main.js "drift" in continued-fraction and sum-series — both deliberately split implementation across lib/basic.js and lib/generators.js and select between them at runtime via lib/index.js. Marked intentional-deviation / needs-human and dropped.
• Heterogeneous public signatures across the namespace — no single majority shape.
• Validation prologue and error construction — no package in math/base/tools throws, so there is no normalization target.
• Features that fell short of the 75% threshold (Notes L2 section at 71%, lib/factory.js at 65%, See Also at 35%).

Related Issues

No related issues.

Questions

No.

Other

Random namespace pick, seed 20260430. Detailed run report (per-feature distributions, dropped corrections, agent verdicts) is kept locally outside the repo tree at ~/drift-reports/drift-math-base-tools-2026-04-30.md.

Checklist

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

This PR was authored end-to-end by Claude Code running an automated cross-package drift-detection routine: structural and semantic features were extracted from every member of math/base/tools, three independent validation agents confirmed each correction, and the four added docs/repl.txt files were derived deterministically from the existing JSDoc and TypeScript declarations of each package.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

---

Generated by Claude Code

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
math/base/tools/evalpoly-compile-c	$\color{green}195/195$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}27/27$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}1/1$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}195/195$ $\color{green}+100.00%$
math/base/tools/evalpoly-compile	$\color{green}210/210$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{red}41/42$ $\color{green}+97.62%$	$\color{green}1/1$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}210/210$ $\color{green}+100.00%$
math/base/tools/evalrational-compile-c	$\color{green}300/300$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}38/38$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}5/5$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}300/300$ $\color{green}+100.00%$
math/base/tools/evalrational-compile	$\color{green}340/340$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{red}52/53$ $\color{green}+98.11%$	$\color{green}6/6$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}340/340$ $\color{green}+100.00%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.