chore: remove misspelled keyword in lapack/base/iladl{c,r}

[Planeshifter]

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

Drops the misspelled "auxilary" keyword from the package.json keywords array in @stdlib/lapack/base/iladlc and @stdlib/lapack/base/iladlr. The misspelled form appears nowhere else in stdlib, and 26 of 28 sibling routine packages in lapack/base carry no auxiliary-family keyword at all (93% namespace conformance for "absent"). Removal brings the two manifests in line with the rest of the namespace.

Namespace summary

• Namespace scanned: @stdlib/lapack/base
• Members: 30 raw → 28 routines after excluding shared and xerbla (both path-export utilities, not function-routines)
• Structural features analyzed: file-tree presence, package.json top-level keys, scripts/engines blobs, keyword sets, manifest shape, README ##/### section sequence and presence
• Semantic features analyzed (per package, via sonnet agents): public signature, returnKind, validation prologue, error construction, JSDoc shape, runtime dependencies
• Features with a clear majority (≥75%): file-tree skeleton (8 files at 100%), ## C APIs section (86%), JSDoc LDA/LDB/LDO/LDC type (≥87%), JSDoc M type for matrix routines (83%), keyword core set (10 terms at 96–100%), error construction (100% format among packages that throw)
• Features without a clear majority (excluded): returnKind (64% mode), JSDoc N type (58%), per-package validation-prologue sequence

lapack/base/iladlc

Removes the misspelled keyword "auxilary" from package.json. The correct spelling "auxiliary" is absent from 26 of 28 sibling packages in lapack/base, making the keyword itself non-conformant with namespace conventions. One-line deletion brings the manifest in line with the rest of the namespace.

lapack/base/iladlr

Removes the misspelled keyword "auxilary" from package.json to match the convention used by 26 of 28 other routines in lapack/base, which carry no auxiliary-family keyword. The correct spelling appears in neither this package nor iladlc, so deletion is the conformant fix rather than correction.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

No.

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

Validation

• Structural extraction over all 28 routine packages (file tree, package.json shape, README headings, manifest shape).
• Semantic extraction via per-package sonnet subagents in two batches of 14 (no JSON retries needed).
• Three-agent adversarial review on every surviving candidate (opus semantic, opus cross-reference, sonnet structural).

Deliberately excluded from this PR

• ## C APIs README stub absent in clacgv, crot, zlacgv, zrot: stdlib-wide presence is only ~63% in blas/base and 0% in stats/base, failing the ≥90% ecosystem-wide gate for "add a missing section" fixes.
• lib/ndarray.js / benchmark/benchmark.ndarray.js absent in dlamch, dlapy2, dlapy3: scalar-input routines have no strided variant; intentional.
• lib/base.js absent in 7 packages: requires extracting and rewiring the kernel — not a mechanical fix.
• JSDoc @param {integer} LDA → {PositiveInteger} in iladlc/iladlr (87% namespace conformance, runtime guard enforces LDA ≥ 1): correct on substance but Agent 2 flagged needs-human because docs/repl.txt documents the old type and is generator-owned per stdlib convention, so cannot be hand-edited in lockstep. Dropped to avoid leaving a half-state. Should be revisited once a REPL regen routine is in place.
• JSDoc @param {PositiveInteger} M → {NonNegativeInteger} in iladlc/iladlr (83% namespace conformance for matrix routines): the per-namespace majority for N is only 58%, so changing M alone would leave the two annotations internally inconsistent against an identical kernel guard (if ( M <= 0 || N <= 0 ) return -1;). Dropped pending broader rework.
• xerbla and shared excluded entirely: both are JS-side path-export utilities, not routines.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of 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

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

This PR was produced by Claude Code running a cross-package drift detection routine over @stdlib/lapack/base. The routine extracted structural features (file tree, package.json shape, README sections) and semantic features (per-package via sonnet subagents) from all 28 routine packages, ran a three-agent adversarial validation pass (semantic, cross-reference, structural) on every candidate that exceeded the 75% majority threshold, and applied only the corrections that survived. Two larger drift findings (LDA type, M type) were dropped on validator review — see the Other section above. The remaining keyword removal is mechanical and was applied verbatim.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

---

Generated by Claude Code

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
lapack/base/iladlc	$\color{green}304/304$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}20/20$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}3/3$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}304/304$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$
lapack/base/iladlr	$\color{red}371/373$ $\color{green}+99.46\%$	$\color{red}36/37$ $\color{green}+97.30\%$	$\color{green}3/3$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{red}371/373$ $\color{green}+99.46\%$

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