docs: Added code of conduct

CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+# Lynkr Code of Conduct
+
+## Why this exists
+
+Lynkr is infrastructure people trust with their agent traffic and their money.
+That trust extends to the community: contributors should be able to file an
+issue, review a PR, or disagree about routing design without being demeaned,
+dismissed, or driven off. This document says what we expect, what we don't
+tolerate, and exactly what happens when someone reports a problem.
+
+We'd rather have a slower answer in an issue thread than a fast one that makes
+someone feel stupid for asking.
+
+## Who and where this covers
+
+This code applies to everyone participating in the Lynkr project — maintainers,
+contributors, and users — in every project space:
+
+- The GitHub repository: issues, pull requests, discussions, commit messages,
+  and code review comments
+- Any project chat, forum, or mailing list
+- Social media posts made in connection with the project (e.g., replying to
+  someone's question about Lynkr, discussing a contributor's work)
+- Conferences, meetups, and calls where you are representing or discussing
+  Lynkr
+
+It protects everyone, and we name explicitly the characteristics that are most
+often targeted: age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity,
+sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience,
+education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race,
+caste, religion (or lack of it), and sexual identity and orientation.
+Experience level is on that list deliberately: this is a technical project,
+and newcomer-hostility is the failure mode technical projects actually have.
+
+## What we expect
+
+- **Assume competence, explain context.** "This breaks session pinning —
+  here's why that matters" teaches; "did you even read the code?" doesn't.
+- **Review the code, not the person.** Critique in a PR should be specific,
+  actionable, and about the change.
+- **Welcome imperfect first contributions.** A rough PR with a good idea is a
+  gift, not a burden. Say what's good before what's wrong.
+- **Disagree with receipts.** Routing design, benchmarks, and provider quirks
+  are debated with evidence, not volume or seniority.
+- **Give credit.** If an issue, comment, or upstream project shaped your
+  change, say so.
+- **Accept "no" gracefully.** Maintainers will decline changes; contributors
+  may decline suggestions. Neither is an insult.
+
+## What we don't tolerate
+
+Concrete examples, because vague codes protect no one:
+
+- Insults, put-downs, or name-calling — including "polite" versions like
+  feigned confusion at someone's question or RTFM-style responses
+- Comments that demean anyone based on the characteristics listed above,
+  including "jokes" and stereotypes
+- Sexualized language, imagery, or unwelcome sexual attention in any project
+  space
+- Harassment: sustained unwanted contact, dogpiling on a contributor,
+  following someone across threads to continue an argument they've exited
+- Publishing someone's private information (address, employer, legal name,
+  contact details) without explicit permission
+- Gatekeeping: telling someone they're not qualified to participate, use the
+  project, or hold an opinion
+- Retaliation against anyone who reports a violation in good faith, or
+  weaponizing this code with knowingly false reports
+- Sustained disruption: derailing threads, sealioning, reopening settled
+  decisions without new information
+
+Not violations: rejecting a PR, direct technical criticism of a change,
+enforcing project scope, or asking someone to take an off-topic discussion
+elsewhere.
+
+## How to report
+
+Email **hello@lynkrhq.com** with the subject line "Conduct". Include what
+happened, where (links help), when, and who was involved. Screenshots are
+welcome; deleted comments are still violations.
+
+- You do not have to be the target to report — witnesses are encouraged to.
+- If you are uncomfortable reporting under your name, you may use an alias
+  email account; reports are judged on their evidence, not the reporter's
+  identity.
+- **If your report concerns the maintainer**, we acknowledge the structural
+  problem honestly: Lynkr currently has a single maintainer, so there is no
+  independent chain. For behavior in GitHub-hosted spaces (issues, PRs,
+  discussions, review comments), report it to GitHub via
+  [GitHub's Report Abuse process](https://github.com/contact/report-abuse),
+  which the maintainer cannot influence. For behavior elsewhere, report it to
+  that venue's own process — the event's organizers, or the platform's trust
+  and safety channel — all of which are likewise outside the maintainer's
+  control. We name this gap rather than paper over it: until the maintainer
+  team grows, there is no single independent contact for non-GitHub
+  incidents, and this section will be replaced with a named second contact
+  as soon as one exists.
+
+What happens after you report:
+
+1. **Acknowledgment within 48 hours** that the report was received.
+2. **Review**: the maintainer reads the material, gathers context, and — where
+   it can be done without exposing the reporter — hears from the person
+   reported.
+3. **Decision within 14 days**, communicated to the reporter and the person
+   reported. If it takes longer, you'll be told why and given a new date.
+4. **Follow-up**: for upheld reports, the maintainer checks in with the
+   reporter after roughly one month to confirm the behavior actually stopped.
+   Resolution on paper is not resolution.
+
+Reports are kept confidential. Details are shared only as needed to
+investigate and act.
+
+## Consequences
+
+Proportional to impact and pattern, at the maintainer's judgment:
+
+1. **Correction** — a private (or, for public harm, public) explanation of
+   why the behavior violated this code, with an expectation it stops.
+2. **Warning** — formal notice that continued behavior means removal, possibly
+   with a cooling-off period away from project spaces.
+3. **Temporary ban** — a defined period of no participation in any project
+   space, including PRs, issues, and review.
+4. **Permanent ban** — for severe violations (threats, harassment campaigns,
+   doxxing) or repeated violations after warning. Severe cases skip the
+   ladder.
+
+Consequences apply to everyone, including the maintainer's collaborators,
+sponsors, and heaviest contributors. Code quality does not buy conduct
+exemptions.
+
+## Keeping this honest
+
+This document is reviewed every six months (or after any enforcement action,
+whichever comes first) and the revision date below is updated even when
+nothing changes, so you can tell it's alive. Substantive changes are made in
+public PRs like any other change to the project.
+
+This code was written for Lynkr following
+[Project Include's guidance](https://projectinclude.org/writing_cocs), with
+structural conventions from the
+[Contributor Covenant](https://www.contributor-covenant.org) community. It is
+not copy-pasted boilerplate; if part of it doesn't fit how this community
+actually behaves, open an issue and say so.
+
+*Last reviewed: 2026-08-26*

README.md

@@ -617,6 +617,9 @@ With tier routing + token optimization: **additional 50-87% savings** on cloud p
 - [NPM Package](https://www.npmjs.com/package/lynkr) — Official releases
 - [DeepWiki](https://deepwiki.com/Fast-Editor/Lynkr) — AI-powered docs
 
+This project follows our [Code of Conduct](CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) — it applies in
+all project spaces, and it tells you exactly how to report a problem.
+
 ---
 
 ## License