doc: Add application note of 28-quick_porting_from_evalsoc_to_customs…

[dongyongtao]

---

Important

Add 28-quick_porting_from_evalsoc_to_customsoc_based_on_Nuclei_SDK.md to documentation and update timestamp in README.md.

• Documentation:
  • Added 28-quick_porting_from_evalsoc_to_customsoc_based_on_Nuclei_SDK.md to README.md and mkdocs.yml.
• Misc:
  • Updated generation timestamp in README.md.

^{This description was created by for ccafbf9. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to ccafbf9 in 1 minute and 34 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 31 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. README.md:33

• Draft comment:
  Updated generation timestamp. Confirm that update.py output reflects current state.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

2. README.md:64

• Draft comment:
  New documentation entry added. Verify the file name and description are correct.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

3. mkdocs.yml:35

• Draft comment:
  Navigation updated to include the new document. Confirm its correct placement in the nav order.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

4. mkdocs.yml:35

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The filename uses 'customsoc' in '28-quick_porting_from_evalsoc_to_customsoc_based_on_Nuclei_SDK.md'. Should it be 'customs' as in the pull request title?
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This is a documentation filename being added to a navigation structure. The filename itself is clear and descriptive. Whether it matches the PR title exactly is irrelevant - the PR title might be abbreviated or simplified. The comment is not suggesting any functional issue, just questioning terminology consistency. The filename inconsistency could potentially indicate a deeper issue or confusion about terminology that should be standardized across the documentation. The filename is clear and descriptive as is. Consistency with PR titles is not a requirement, and PR titles often use shortened forms. The term 'customsoc' is more precise and clearer than 'customs' in this context. This comment should be deleted as it's not suggesting any functional changes and is merely questioning terminology without strong evidence of an actual issue.

Workflow ID: wflow_B3WotIOBOeD6Ms5c

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[fanghuaqi]

最关键的文件没传 @dongyongtao

[fanghuaqi]

LGTM