docs: add simple usage example for retrieval_core task

[AviralAv03]

What it does?

fixes issue #20

What I did?

1.Added a folder ('/docs/usage')
2.Created ('retrieval-core.md') and added an example script with explanation of what does it do.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added user-facing documentation for the retrieval_core task, including an overview of its behavior, explanation of sampling-based counting, and a practical Python example showing how to generate a payload and run the task.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 499c5432-1ae7-4e1e-9596-24e647c0bc9e

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0d1984d and a21e2db.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/usage/retrieval_core.md

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

• docs/usage/retrieval_core.md

---

Walkthrough

Added a new documentation page docs/usage/retrieval_core.md titled "Retrieval Core Task Usage" that describes the retrieval_core task, its sampling-based counting approach, and provides a Python example showing payload generation and solving.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Documentation docs/usage/retrieval_core.md	Added new documentation page describing the retrieval_core task (mini search-engine benchmark), its sampling-based counting method, and a Python usage example (retrieval_core.generate, retrieval_core.solve).

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Suggested labels

documentation

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: adding a simple usage example documentation for the retrieval_core task, which directly matches the content added.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/usage/retrieval_core.md`:
- Around line 3-4: Update the description of the retrieval_core task to remove
any implication that it benchmarks runtime/latency and instead state that
solve() estimates hit counts by sampling a subset of generated documents and
returns those estimates with a confidence score; explicitly mention the
probabilistic nature of the results and that sampling trades exactness for
speed, but do not claim a direct measurement of execution time or throughput.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: f7bb8e47-df61-4a40-8486-ed6903ab633c

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a302e5f and 0d1984d.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/usage/retrieval_core.md

[Aaryan-Dadu]

Please add demo screenshot of this script in the PR

[Aaryan-Dadu]

Please resolve the failing CI

[Aaryan-Dadu]

And please add Fixes #20 in your PR description to link the issue to the PR.