docs: add technical blog review rubric

Signed-off-by: Chenhan Yu <chenhany@nvidia.com>

Author: ChenhanYu

.agents/review-guidelines/technical-blog.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# Technical blog review guideline
+
+Use this rubric when a pull-request comment requests a **technical blog** or
+**technical announcement** review. It applies to public-facing documentation
+such as `docs/source/announcements/` and complements the repository's normal
+code-review guidance.
+
+## Review scope
+
+Review the changed announcement and its landing-page card together. Do not
+review unrelated source files unless they provide evidence for a claim in the
+post.
+
+## Checks
+
+1. **Factual support** — Every technical claim, performance number, and
+   comparison must be supported by a cited public source, a clearly identified
+   reproducible measurement, or a qualified statement. Flag claims that
+   overstate what the cited source establishes.
+2. **Citation integrity** — Check that cited papers, repositories, checkpoints,
+   and issue or PR links exist and match the surrounding claim. Publication
+   dates must not precede the cited source's availability.
+3. **Technical precision** — Preserve meaningful distinctions: measured versus
+   inferred results, training versus serving behavior, throughput versus
+   latency, architecture versus implementation detail, and public facts versus
+   internal context.
+4. **Figure provenance** — Images need an accurate alt text and a source or
+   provenance that makes their public use appropriate. Captions and nearby
+   text must not imply a result the figure does not show.
+5. **Public-release suitability** — Do not expose private infrastructure,
+   unreleased products, confidential benchmark data, credentials, internal
+   URLs, or claims that cannot be independently supported by public material.
+6. **Reader clarity** — Verify the title, date, author, summary, tags, and
+   announcement-card metadata agree. Prefer precise terminology over marketing
+   shorthand when the two could be confused.
+
+## Findings
+
+Raise only material findings. Each finding should identify the exact claim,
+explain the public-facing risk, and propose a concrete correction. Do not
+duplicate routine style, spelling, or formatting feedback already handled by
+CodeRabbit.