[Guideline] Do not invoke undefined behavior

[AchimKriso]

I felt motivated to write some rules about unsafety in Rust.

This rule (or a variant thereof) seems inevitable, since most coding standards I'm aware of have a similar rule:

• CERT: MSC15-C. Do not depend on undefined behavior
• MISRA C 2025 Rule 1.3 and MISRA C++ 2023 Rule 4.1.3: There shall be no occurrence of undefined or critical unspecified behaviour

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for scrc-coding-guidelines ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	c17f7d7
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/scrc-coding-guidelines/deploys/68a33d12f122440008dbdafa
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-175--scrc-coding-guidelines.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[PLeVasseur]

I felt motivated to write some rules about unsafety in Rust.

Hey @AchimKriso -- that's great hear ☺️ Happy to have folks contributing.

The below issue is pretty squarely on me:

Could I ask you to first open a coding guideline issue template issue and fill the fields in there?

We'll then review it while it's an issue and if all looks good, assign a label sign-off: create pr from issue.

Once the label is affixed, a GitHub Action will fire to create a PR for further detailed review.

For revisions you'll be able to modify the contents of the issue, and we can re-fire the label to subsume the previous PR's contents with the revised version.

--

I have a PR which should update the instructions to have this step included, but I've not gotten it merged yet. Apologies for that 🙏

The concept with having an issue => PR pipeline being that:

• we want to have a good amount of control in the review process while it's an issue and then line-by-line when it's a PR
• we'd like to make contributing easy
• by having a fairly well-controlled process of what we allow for guidelines contributions
• by including plans to add further checks in that process from issue => PR

So again -- it's on me that this is not documented better, I need to get that PR updated and merged to reflect our planned process.

--

The same request applies to #176 as well.