chore: point the project URLs at the new repository

[earakely-scale]

The package metadata (Homepage, Repository, Issues in both pyproject.toml files) and the contributor clone instructions in CONTRIBUTING.md now name this repository.

CODEOWNERS now describes what the rules enforce: owners are requested as reviewers, and one approval from anyone with write access satisfies the ruleset.

This is the first release from this repository. The version bump, the tag, the package publish and the downstream pin all run from here for the first time.

Test plan

• No references to the previous repository URL remain (git grep).
• After merge: the version bump commit and tag are pushed, the publish job is green on the tag, and the downstream pin bump runs.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Confidence Score: 4/5

The PR appears safe to merge, though its review instructions should be made consistent.

Findings

1.  Review instructions disagree ▶

Fix with agent prompt

### Issue 1
CODEOWNERS:3-4
The new `CODEOWNERS` comment says a code-owner approval is not needed, but `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `README.md` still say every pull request needs one. Update those guides alongside this comment so contributors know whose approval they need.

Note: If this suggestion doesn't match your team's coding style, reply to this and let me know. I'll remember it for next time!

---

For each issue above, determine whether it is valid and should be fixed. If so, fix it directly.

Summary

Both packages and the contributor setup now point to scaleapi/agentenv-framework. CODEOWNERS explains review requests separately from the approval rule.

• Updates the homepage, repository, and issue links in both package metadata files.
• Changes the contributor clone and directory commands to use the new repository name.
• Clarifies who gets review requests and who can approve pull requests.

_{Reviews (1) · Last reviewed commit: "chore: point the project URLs at the new..."}

[greptile-apps]

Review instructions disagree

The new CODEOWNERS comment says a code-owner approval is not needed, but CONTRIBUTING.md and README.md still say every pull request needs one. Update those guides alongside this comment so contributors know whose approval they need.

Prompt To Fix With AI

This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: CODEOWNERS
Line: 3-4

Comment:
**Review instructions disagree**

The new `CODEOWNERS` comment says a code-owner approval is not needed, but `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `README.md` still say every pull request needs one. Update those guides alongside this comment so contributors know whose approval they need.

---

For each issue above, determine whether it is valid and should be fixed. If so, fix it directly.

Note: If this suggestion doesn't match your team's coding style, reply to this and let me know. I'll remember it for next time!