docs: updated validator attestation monitoring guide

[Beutife]

Motivation

This PR updates and improves the documentation for monitoring validator attestation performance in Lodestar. It addresses reviewer feedback to make the guide more accurate and user-friendly for node operators.

Description

• Enhanced the guide for monitoring validator attestations
• Added clear steps and explanations
• Updated sidebar configuration

#6591

Closes #issue_number
#6591

Steps to test or reproduce

   git checkout docs/attestation-performance
   cd docs
   yarn start

Open http://localhost:3000/

Navigate to Run a Node → Validator Client → Monitoring Attestation

Confirm page displays correctly and sidebar links work.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @Beutife, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request significantly enhances the Lodestar documentation by introducing a detailed guide for monitoring validator attestation performance. The new guide provides in-depth explanations, critical timing requirements, diagnostic labels, and troubleshooting steps to help node operators optimize their validator's attestation success. Additionally, the PR refactors the documentation sidebar to integrate this new content and temporarily comment out several links corresponding to currently unavailable document files, improving the overall user experience and accuracy of the documentation.

Highlights

• New Attestation Monitoring Guide: A comprehensive guide for monitoring validator attestation performance in Lodestar has been added, detailing workflow, timing, metrics, and troubleshooting.
• Documentation Sidebar Update: The documentation sidebar configuration has been updated to include the new attestation monitoring guide and temporarily comment out several links corresponding to currently unavailable document files.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces an excellent and comprehensive guide for monitoring validator attestations, which will be highly valuable for node operators. The changes also include updates to the sidebar to reflect the new documentation and clean up links to missing pages. My review includes a couple of suggestions to improve the clarity of the new guide, specifically around an ambiguous diagnostic label and a potentially confusing formula. Overall, this is a great addition to the documentation.