chore: repoint URLs after the repo rename to lci-codegraph

[stephane-segning]

1. Summary

This PR changes:

• Repoints every self-referential URL from vymalo/codegraph to vymalo/lci-codegraph — Cargo.toml (repository, homepage), the README CI badge, and the CHANGELOG release link
• Records the two extraction fixes from fix: extract bodiless trait methods and stop binary content reaching chunks #4 under the existing 0.1.0 entry rather than a new Unreleased section

It solves:

• The repository was renamed so it matches the crate name it publishes under: https://github.com/vymalo/lci-codegraph
• Fixes being recorded: Trait methods without a default body are never extracted (no chunk, no graph node) #1 and Binary/NUL guard is bypassed on the graph-enabled walk path #2

---

2. Intent

The intent of this PR is:

GitHub redirects the old URLs indefinitely, so nothing is broken today. But Cargo.toml's repository and homepage get baked into the published crate and rendered on crates.io and docs.rs, where a redirect is a worse experience than a correct link — and the redirect is a fact about GitHub, not about this repo. Updating them explicitly keeps the manifest self-describing.

The CHANGELOG entries go under 0.1.0 rather than Unreleased because 0.1.0 has not been published to crates.io yet — there is no released version for a fix to come after. An Unreleased section would imply 0.1.0 shipped with those bugs, which is not true.

---

3. Scope

In Scope

• The 5 self-referential URL occurrences across 3 files
• CHANGELOG entries for the fix: extract bodiless trait methods and stop binary content reaching chunks #4 fixes

Out of Scope

• The consuming monorepo, which pins this crate by git URL and rev. It needs its own change to pick up both the new URL and the fix commit; that is a separate PR in that repository.
• Renaming anything else. The crate has always been lci-codegraph — only the repository name was out of step.

---

4. Verification

I verified this change by:

• Running automated tests
• Running manual tests
• Checking logs
• Checking metrics
• Testing error cases
• Testing permissions/security behavior
• Testing rollback or failure behavior, if relevant

Commands run:

grep -ro "vymalo/codegraph" --exclude-dir=.git --exclude-dir=target . | wc -l
cargo package --list --locked
cargo test --no-fail-fast

Results:

$ grep -ro "vymalo/codegraph" --exclude-dir=.git --exclude-dir=target . | wc -l
0

$ cargo package --list --locked
    (succeeds on a clean tree; the manifest still packages)

$ cargo test --no-fail-fast
    11 test binaries, all ok, 0 failed

Zero stale occurrences remain. CI on this PR re-runs the full suite, so the #4 fixes are re-verified on top of the rename.

---

5. Screenshots / Evidence

Add evidence here:

• Renamed repository: https://github.com/vymalo/lci-codegraph
• lci-codegraph is confirmed available on crates.io; the bare codegraph name is already taken by an unrelated crate, which is why this crate always carried the prefix and why the repo name was the thing out of step.

---

6. Risk Assessment

Risk level:

• Low
• Medium
• High

Potential risks:

• Any external link to the old repository URL now depends on GitHub redirects rather than resolving directly.
• The consuming monorepo still points at the old URL until its own PR lands.

Mitigation:

• GitHub redirects renamed repositories indefinitely, including git remotes, so the monorepo keeps building in the interim.
• That monorepo change is queued immediately after this, and pairs the URL update with the rev bump that picks up the fix: extract bodiless trait methods and stop binary content reaching chunks #4 fixes — so the redirect is a transient state measured in minutes, not a permanent dependency.

---

7. AI Usage Declaration

AI was used for:

• Understanding existing code
• Generating code
• Refactoring
• Generating tests
• Drafting documentation
• Reviewing the diff
• Not used

Human verification:

• I understand every meaningful change in this PR
• I checked generated code manually
• I checked generated tests manually
• I removed unsupported AI assumptions
• I accept responsibility for this PR

---

8. Reviewer Focus

Please focus your review on:

• Correctness
• Architecture
• Security
• Performance
• Tests
• Maintainability
• Product intent
• Edge cases

Specifically: whether the CHANGELOG fixes belong under 0.1.0 (my reading: yes, since it has not shipped) or under an Unreleased heading.