docs: add docstrings to five CLI worker functions

[lesbass]

Closes #74.

Adds docstrings to the five public CLI worker functions in src/scitex_stats/_cli/stats.py, following the existing convention set by the private helpers (_read_data, _select_column, _emit):

• run_tests_list — single-line summary
• run_tests_execute — keyword-only args documented with return values (0 on success, 1 on error)
• run_tests_describe — keyword-only args and return documented
• run_tests_recommend — keyword-only args documented including sample_sizes as comma-separated string
• run_format_pvalue — single-line summary

Verification:

• AST check confirms all five public functions now have docstrings
• pytest tests/scitex_stats/_cli/ -v — 178 passed, 0 failed

[github-actions]

Thank you for signing the SciTeX CLA. Your contribution can now be reviewed.
_{Posted by the CLA Assistant Lite bot.}

[lesbass]

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

[lesbass]

The quality-audit / audit CI failure is pre-existing and unrelated to this PR — all 14 errors are [PS-221 §3 public-extra-not-closed-under-all] in pyproject.toml, a file this PR does not touch. The failure is caused by scitex-dev v0.34.0 adding new project-structure rules that the repository has not adopted yet.

All other checks passed: pytest-matrix (py3.11, 3.12, 3.13), import-smoke, and rtd-sphinx-build.

[ywatanabe1989]

Thank you — this is careful work. We verified every documented claim against the source (arg names, defaults, the sample_sizes comma-string semantics, paired overriding design, the 0/1 return codes) and it all checks out. CLA is signed, and the red quality-audit check is pre-existing repo-wide debt on our side (being fixed in #78) — not your PR's problem.

One process wrinkle we owe both of you fairness on: issue #74 was assigned to @varshu55 a few hours before this PR was opened — they asked first and we assigned it. To keep assignments meaningful for first-time contributors, we'll hold this PR until July 28 to give the assignee their shot; if #74 has no PR from them by then, we'll merge this one. We know an assignee field is easy to miss — for future picks, a quick "I'll take this" comment on the issue first avoids the collision.

If you'd like something that's yours right away, these are open and unassigned, same shape as this one: scitex-io #144 (README fix), #145 (round-trip tests), #146 / #147 (actionable error messages). Say the word and we'll assign any of them to you.

[lesbass]

Friendly follow-up on this PR: per your note on Jul 21, the hold window ended July 28, and I don't see any PR from the #74 assignee. Since the condition you set has been met, I wanted to check whether anything else is needed from my side before this can land — happy to rebase, adjust the docstrings, or help in any other way. Thanks again for the careful review!

[lesbass]

Hi maintainers, just a gentle follow-up on this PR (now 21 days old). The hold window ended July 28 and the documentation changes have been verified. Could you let us know if you plan to merge, or if we should close this PR? Thanks!

[ywatanabe1989]

Hi @lesbass,

Thank you so much for your contribution, and I’m very sorry for the delayed response. Your contribution means a lot to this project and helps make SciTeX a truly community-driven project for science.

I really appreciate your patience and support!

Best regards,
Yusuke