[Analyzer Comments]: Changes for Upgrade to Python 3.13

[BethanyG]

• Added general recommendations for exercises that have no comments from analyzer.
• Changed analyzer-comments/python/pylint/convention.md to (hopefully) accommodate additional code examples and comments from PyLint.
• Changed analyzer-comments/python/pylint/refactor.md to (hopefully) accommodate additional code examples and comments from PyLint.

[BethanyG]

@kotp - need feedback on the Ruby string interpolation for the PyLint comments. I did try them out on https://try.ruby-lang.org/, but not completely sure that they'll work with Exercism's processing. I want to avoid having to PR all of the code examples here, which is why I am shoving them into JSON and then trying to expand them in the feedback doc. Please let me know if you need to see a sample analysis.json.

@IsaacG - I think we can safely do 10 recommendations in general_recommendations.md, but I'd love feedback on the last 4-6 as "general tips". Students would only see this feedback if they

1. Had code that was good but not perfect.
2. Didn't have any other analyzer feedback - either from PyLint or from the Analyzer.

Many thanks to you both for reviewing!!

[BethanyG]

Decided I should just put in a sample analysis.json. See below:

{
    "summary": "There are a few changes we'd like you to make before completing this exercise.",
    "comments": [
        {
            "comment": "python.pylint.warning",
            "params": {
                "lineno": "46",
                "code": "W0622 redefined-builtin",
                "message": "Redefining built-in 'sum'",
                "bad_code": "def map():  # [redefined-builtin]\n    pass\n",
                "good_code": "def map_iterable():\n    pass\n",
                "related_info": null,
                "details": "Shadowing [built-ins](https://docs.python.org/3.13/library/functions.html) at the global scope is discouraged because it\nobscures their behavior throughout the entire module, increasing the\nrisk of subtle bugs when the built-in is needed elsewhere.\n\n In contrast, local redefinitions _might_ be acceptable as their impact is confined to a\nspecific scope; although it is generally not a good idea.\n"
            },
            "type": "essential"
        },
        {
            "comment": "python.pylint.error",
            "params": {
                "lineno": "46",
                "code": "E0601 used-before-assignment",
                "message": "Using variable 'sum' before assignment",
                "bad_code": "print(hello)  # [used-before-assignment]\nhello = \"Hello World !\"\n",
                "good_code": "hello = \"Hello World !\"\nprint(hello)\n",
                "related_info": null,
                "details": null
            },
            "type": "essential"
        },
        {
            "comment": "python.pylint.refactor",
            "params": {
                "lineno": "62",
                "code": "R1705 no-else-return",
                "message": "Unnecessary \"elif\" after \"return\", remove the leading \"el\" from \"elif",
                "bad_code": "def compare_numbers(a: int, b: int) -> int:\n    if a == b:  # [no-else-return]\n        return 0\n    elif a < b:\n        return -1\n    else:\n        return 1\n",
                "good_code": "def compare_numbers(a: int, b: int) -> int:\n    if a == b:\n        return 0\n    if a < b:\n        return -1\n    return 1\n",
                "related_info": "- [Unnecessary-else-statements](https://www.pythonmorsels.com/unnecessary-else-statements/)\n",
                "details": null
            },
            "type": "actionable"
        }
    ]
}