chore: fix JavaScript lint errors (issue #10073)

[SIDDARTHAREDDY8]

Resolves #10073.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• Fixes the two JavaScript lint errors reported in Fix JavaScript lint errors #10073 for lib/node_modules/@stdlib/_tools/remark/plugins/remark-run-javascript-examples/lib/index.js:
  1. stdlib/jsdoc-doctest: the @example block asserted // => 'HELLO WORLD', but the annotated expression evaluates (in the doctest scope) to the remark module export (unified's processor function), so the displayed return value did not match the actual value. Replaced with the illustrative // e.g., => 'HELLO WORLD!' marker, consistent with the sibling lib/main.js example, which the doctest rule does not verify.
  2. stdlib/jsdoc-main-export: the rule requires the package self-require to be the last require( occurrence in the example text, but the Markdown fixture strings contain require( "path" ) after it. Moved var run = require( '@stdlib/_tools/remark/plugins/remark-run-javascript-examples' ); below the fixture so the self-require is the last require call.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• Fix JavaScript lint errors #10073

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

Verification performed locally:

• Ran the actual stdlib/jsdoc-main-export rule (from lib/node_modules/@stdlib/_tools/eslint/rules/jsdoc-main-export) against the original file: reproduced the exact reported error at 21:1. After the fix: 0 errors.
• Ran the actual RE_ANNOTATION pattern from the stdlib/jsdoc-doctest rule against the original example: 1 annotation matched (the failing one). After the fix: 0 annotations matched (// e.g., => is illustrative-only, same convention as lib/main.js).
• node --check passes on the modified file.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

This PR was authored with AI assistance (Muse). The AI researched the two failing ESLint rules in the stdlib repository, reproduced both errors locally against the actual rule implementations, and generated the JSDoc example fix (require reordering and the illustrative // e.g., => marker). A human operator reviewed and verified the change before submission.

---