docs: port documentation to Markdown with Zensical theme

[davidberenstein1957]

Summary

Port CodeCarbon documentation from reStructuredText (.rst) to Markdown (.md) with Zensical theme.

Changes

• Convert all RST docs to Markdown format
• Add configuration
• Use CodeCarbon teal branding (matching logo)
• Fix index.md formatting
• Add proper headers and structure matching original RST

Branding

• Primary color: teal (CodeCarbon's brand color)
• Accent color: teal
• Dark/light mode support enabled

Files Changed

• docs/*.md (19 files)
• docs/zensical.yml (new)
• zensical.toml (new)

Verification

Build docs with: uv run task docs

[inimaz]

Thanks for this @davidberenstein1957 ! Maybe update as well the pyproject.toml with the new deps? If I run uv run task docs it still builds the sphinx documentation

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 78.19%. Comparing base (521adc8) to head (9d7d42d).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1073   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   78.19%   78.19%           
=======================================
  Files          38       38           
  Lines        3637     3637           
=======================================
  Hits         2844     2844           
  Misses        793      793           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[davidberenstein1957]

@inimaz @claude @SabAmine @benoit-cty do you guys have some time to take a look? I did not change much content wise(this will happen in another pr), but mostly ported things to Zensical and make it 2026 ready :)

[benoit-cty]

Thanks David,
My concern is how to make sure we don't miss doc improvement made on RST since you create your branch.
Maybe an AI agent could check that ?
And we have to be careful with following PR to check they also migrate.

[inimaz]

My concern is how to make sure we don't miss doc improvement made on RST since you create your branch

@benoit-cty I think if someone changes a RST file that has been deleted by this branch it will show as a git conflict. Maybe we are good as long as we solve those conflicts properly

[inimaz]

We can use this one as a test #1078, we merge it and it should throw some conflicts in this branch. Then we have nothing to worry about. (I don't mind doing a version of those changes in md as well later).

[davidberenstein1957]

@inimaz @benoit-cty I understand your concern. I've checked before, and I've resolved the conflict to master accordingly. We should be able to merge the current branch and I believe we would not need another check for this.

Either way, I used an agent to check the RST against the markdown, and there don't seem to be any changes against the markdown besides some functional changes to include small Ecologits references.

I'm not 100% about the GitHub workflows working correctly for deployment and versioning, so this might need some minor iteration after merging.

[inimaz]

Thanks for this @davidberenstein1957 , I like a lot the feel.
I think some hallucinations went through though check some of the comments.

[SaboniAmine]

Looks good! In addition to missing sections Inigo identified, some ajustments on the content

[SaboniAmine]

LGTM, a minor formatting issue remains, but after that I guess it could be merged!
We can easily merge patches if something was missing anyway