[docs] Исправлен мануал для корректной установки и использованию

[cyber-baka-cmyk]

docs: обновлён и исправлен мануал по установке и запуску NIKA и сопутствующих утилит

• Переписан мануал с учётом ошибок и недоработок оригинальной версии
• Добавлены корректные шаги, чтобы инструкция работала на практике
• Уточнены формулировки и порядок действий для удобства использования

---

Important

Updated README.md with detailed installation instructions, usage steps, and troubleshooting tips for NIKA.

• Documentation:
  • Updated README.md with corrected and detailed installation steps for NIKA.
  • Added sections for installing Git and Docker on Windows, macOS, and Linux.
  • Included troubleshooting tips for common issues like Docker image loading and port access.
• Usage:
  • Detailed steps for cloning the NIKA repository and launching the application.
  • Instructions for checking service status and useful Docker commands.
• Misc:
  • Clarified requirements and prerequisites for installation.
  • Improved formatting and structure for better readability.

^{This description was created by for fd08cb8. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed everything up to fd08cb8 in 3 minutes and 1 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 262 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. README.md:24

• Draft comment:
  The docs section instructs to open 127.0.0.1:9001 even though 'mkdocs serve' defaults to port 8000. Please verify if port 9001 is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. README.md:212

• Draft comment:
  Replace the placeholder '(server name)' with a note instructing users to insert the actual service/container name.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50% The comment is suggesting to improve documentation clarity by replacing a placeholder with better instructions. However, looking at the context, "(server name)" is already reasonably clear as a placeholder - it's in parentheses which is a common convention for placeholders. The comment is essentially asking for more explicit documentation/explanation rather than pointing out a clear error. According to the rules, I should not keep comments that are purely informative or that ask for clarifications. This seems like a minor documentation improvement suggestion rather than a critical issue. The placeholder is already understandable, and users familiar with Docker would know to replace it with an actual service name. This falls into the category of "not clearly a code change required" - it's more of a "nice to have" documentation improvement. The placeholder "(server name)" might actually be confusing for beginners who this README seems to target (given the extensive step-by-step instructions). A more explicit instruction like "Replace (server name) with the actual service name, e.g., nika-ui" would be more helpful for the target audience. The comment is actionable and would improve user experience. While the comment could improve clarity, it's not pointing out a clear error or bug. The current placeholder is a standard convention and functional as-is. The rules state to only keep comments where there's STRONG EVIDENCE of correctness and clear code change required. This is more of a documentation style preference than a necessary fix. Additionally, line 216 has the same pattern with "(container name)" and wasn't flagged, suggesting inconsistency. This comment suggests a documentation improvement rather than fixing a clear error. The placeholder "(server name)" is already a standard convention that users can understand. Since the rules emphasize keeping only comments with strong evidence of being necessary, and this is more of a "nice to have" improvement, I should delete this comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_P3o7iYIYE1QCqwXc

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}