docs: consolidate rate-limit probe results into a proper benchmark report

The doc had been growing incrementally as each host got probed; reshape
it as a polished benchmark with TL;DR top, methodology section
(including safety constraints + caveats), per-host detailed tables,
final crawler settings, batch-50 walltime breakdown, and a reproduce
recipe.

Five hosts fully covered:
  pro.lceda.cn API   5.0s -> 0.5s  (10×)
  lceda.cn doc       5.0s -> 0.5s  (10×)
  oshwhub detail     2.0s -> 1.0s  ( 2×)
  oshwhub listing    2.0s -> 1.0s  ( 2×)
  modules.lceda CDN  0.2s          (already optimized)

Net effect on batch-50 plan: sleep total ~32min -> ~3min, walltime
~2h -> ~10-15min.

Key finding: the original 5s/req on Pro was set out of "logged-in
account is precious" caution with zero empirical evidence. Sustained
burst probe (25 distinct UUIDs at 0.5s, no recovery) showed 0/25 errors
and median latency 410ms — the caution was unjustified.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

log.md

@@ -4,6 +4,32 @@
 
 ---
 
+## 2026-04-29 03:30  rate-limit benchmark 整理成正式报告
+
+**Claude 会话**
+
+把零散跑出来的 rate-limit ladder 探针结果整理成 `docs/sources/probe_rate_limit_results.md`，从临时增量笔记升级成正式 benchmark 文档。
+
+**5 个 host 全部探完**：
+
+| Host | 旧 sleep | 新 sleep | 加速 |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|
+| `pro.lceda.cn/api/v4/...` | 5.0s | 0.5s | 10× |
+| `lceda.cn/api/documents/...` | 5.0s | 0.5s | 10× |
+| `oshwhub.com/<owner>/<path>` | 2.0s | 1.0s | 2× |
+| `oshwhub.com/api/project` | 2.0s | 1.0s | 2× |
+| `modules.lceda.cn/...` | 0.2s | 0.2s | — (已优化) |
+
+**关键发现**：原 5s/req 完全是出于"Pro 要登录、被封号最痛"的心理顾虑而设，没有实测依据。Pro API 实测 25 distinct UUID 连发 0/25 bad，median 410ms latency，QPS=2 完全经得住。Std doc endpoint 同样的故事。
+
+**对 batch-50 的净效**：sleep 总时间 32 min → 3 min（约 10x），整批 walltime 估算 ~2h → ~10-15 min。
+
+报告结构：TL;DR 总表 → 方法论（包括安全约束 + 限制）→ 5 个 host 各自详细数据 → 最终设置 → 复现指南 → 后续考虑。
+
+下一步：直接跑 batch-50 计划的 Step 1（详情页扫 license）就行。
+
+---
+
 ## 2026-04-29 03:00  跑完 5 块 Pro 项目 export，发现并修两个 --all 崩溃路径
 
 **Claude 会话**