documentation: improve onboarding instructions

[ching202]

Summary

• Added beginner-friendly contributor workflow steps
• Added contribution tips for new students
• Improved onboarding clarity in the README

Related Issue

Closes #53

[ErmiyasHailemichael]

Reviewed the changes in PR #54. The addition of the "Beginner Contributor Workflow" section is helpful and clearly outlines the 6-step process for new contributors. The "Contribution Tips" section is also a great addition for beginners. The changes are well-structured and easy to follow. One suggestion: consider adding a note about creating a draft PR before requesting a review, as this is part of our team's workflow. Overall, this is a solid improvement to the onboarding documentation.

[josehorta21]

Reviewed the README updates adding the Beginner Contributor Workflow and
Contribution Tips sections. Thanks @ching202 for the work on this — and
also for taking the time to review my PR #50 earlier this week.

The 6-step workflow you outlined is a solid quick-reference for new
contributors. A few specific observations after going through the diff:

1. Possible Markdown issue on line 31. The section ends with a closing
   triple-backtick (```) but I don't see a matching opening fence above
   it in the diff. If unintentional, this might render as an empty code
   block at the bottom of the section. Worth double-checking in the Preview
   tab before merging.

2. Overlap with the in-progress Onboarding Guide (#50). My open Draft PR
   adds an Onboarding/Onboarding-Guide.md that covers similar ground
   (picking up an issue, branch naming, PR workflow, code review etiquette,
   etc.). It might be worth coordinating so the README points to the
   Onboarding Guide for the deeper walkthrough, while the README keeps a
   high-level quick-start. Happy to align my section ordering with yours
   if that helps.

3. Branch and commit conventions. Step 2 mentions "Create a branch for
   your assigned work" but doesn't specify the team's naming convention
   (e.g., feature/issue-<number>-<description>). Adding even a short
   example would help new contributors get it right the first time. Same
   for step 4 — a quick nod to Conventional Commits (feat:, fix:,
   docs:) would reinforce the standard.

4. +1 to @ErmiyasHailemichael's suggestion about adding a note on
   creating a draft PR before requesting review. That's a workflow detail
   that's easy to miss when you're new and would prevent premature review
   requests.

5. Contribution Tips section reads well. Short, actionable, and
   beginner-friendly. "Ask questions if you are unsure about workflow
   steps" is especially welcoming — sets the right tone for the practicum.

Overall solid improvement to the README. The main thing to verify before
merge is the line 31 backtick fence, and the coordination with the
Onboarding Guide PR can happen post-merge if it's not blocking.