style: follow-up fixes for commits merged 2026-06-05 / 2026-06-06

[Planeshifter]

Description

Follow-up fixes for commits merged to develop between 2026-06-05 14:02 PDT (813f930e) and 2026-06-06 04:44 PDT (f3b8c813). A 24-hour review window flagged three small, in-scope deviations from established conventions across two new packages.

This pull request:

• adds the missing <section class="intro"></section> placeholder to blas/ext/base/gediff/README.md, overlooked in 545cf3d; aligns the file with the structure required by all sibling packages in the family.
• fixes style deviations in blas/ext/base/gsome (introduced in 813f930): corrects k JSDoc type from {PositiveInteger} to {integer} across lib/main.js, lib/ndarray.js, and lib/accessors.js (since k <= 0 is a valid short-circuit input), updates strideX description to stride length for `x` to match gcusome convention, and switches both benchmark/benchmark.js and benchmark/benchmark.ndarray.js to require( '@stdlib/assert/is-boolean' ).isPrimitive.
• aligns the boolean test-input ordering in array/trues/test/test.js to NaN, true, false, null to match the convention established by array/zeros, array/ones, and array/falses; the original ordering (NaN, false, true, null) introduced in f8df9c7 was inconsistent.

Related Issues

This pull request has no related issues.

Questions

No.

Other

Validation

• Compared each new package against the closest sibling reference (gediff → gcusum; gsome → gcusome; trues → falses / zeros / ones).
• Style-guide compliance scan across the new packages and chore commits in the window.
• Bug scan across the union diff (no high-signal runtime issues survived cross-agent verification).
• Auto-regenerated TypeScript declaration commits were deliberately excluded — formatting in those files is tool-controlled.
• Refactor/fix commits that only touched TS declarations (4e898755, 95016b8c, 727a69cb, 853c4b4f, 3116666b) were validated and left untouched.

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 by Claude Code under my supervision: it audited the last 24 hours of merges to develop against the stdlib style guides and sibling reference packages, applied the validated fixes, and drafted the description. I reviewed each change before pushing.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

---

Generated by Claude Code

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
array/trues	$\color{green}120/120$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}7/7$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}1/1$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}120/120$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$
blas/ext/base/gediff	$\color{green}380/380$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}15/15$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}4/4$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}380/380$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$
blas/ext/base/gsome	$\color{green}261/261$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}28/28$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}3/3$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}261/261$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$

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