feat: verify browser bundle consumption

[the-Drunken-coder]

Summary

• add browser export metadata for the existing ESM dist entry
• add an esbuild browser-platform smoke check that imports sidc-kit from the package root
• document browser-bundler usage and the milsymbol bundle-size tradeoff

Validation

• npm test (build, Node test suite, and esbuild platform: "browser" smoke)
• npm pack --dry-run

Scope limits

• no separate browser build artifact or bundler stack for published code
• no DOM/map UI harness; this validates package-root browser bundler consumption only

Greptile Summary

This PR adds browser-bundler validation for the package root. The main changes are:

• Browser export metadata for the existing ESM dist entry.
• An esbuild browser-platform smoke check for sidc-kit imports.
• Browser usage notes and bundle-size guidance in the README.
• Lockfile updates for the new esbuild test dependency.

Confidence Score: 5/5

The package-root browser bundling path is covered by focused metadata and runtime smoke validation.

No code issues were identified. The changed package metadata, browser smoke script, documentation, and lockfile updates align with the stated package-root browser consumption scope.

None.

T-Rex Logs

What T-Rex did

• Inspected the before artifact to compare base metadata, build, and npm pack, and noted an esbuild smoke could not run on the base.
• Inspected the after artifact and confirmed a successful head build, browser smoke, metadata, and npm pack evidence.
• The head evidence from these artifacts supports the PR hypothesis that package-root browser bundler consumption works without requiring a separate browser artifact or DOM harness.

_{Ran code and verified through T-Rex}

_{Reviews (2): Last reviewed commit: "test: use browser bundler defaults in sm..." | Re-trigger Greptile}

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@the-Drunken-coder, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 3 minutes and 25 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has used up its prepaid credits, and credit purchases are no longer available. Enable the review add-on in the billing tab to keep reviews running — you're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based credits.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: f928930f-48be-428d-b9bd-ba8f5504592f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3b6285b and e531c67.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• package-lock.json is excluded by !**/package-lock.json

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• README.md
• package.json
• scripts/browser-smoke.mjs

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch codex/browser-bundle-check

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[the-Drunken-coder]

@codex review

[the-Drunken-coder]

@greptileai review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. What shall we delve into next?

Reviewed commit: a8071429c6

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".