Fix stale retail/healthcare recipe references and placeholder package metadata

[Anilreddy2309]

Summary

Two small doc/metadata drift issues found while reviewing the codebase:

1. Non-existent example recipes in docs/help text. nvflow/cli/main.py's --recipe option help text and nvflow/core/stage_registry.py's register()/class docstrings reference retail and healthcare as example recipes. Only finance, example, and multimodal recipes exist anywhere in the codebase (confirmed via @StageRegistry.register call sites) — retail/healthcare look like leftover placeholder names from before the repo's public release. Updated the examples to real recipe names.

2. Placeholder package metadata. pyproject.toml shipped authors = [{name = "Your Team", email = "team@example.com"}] — an unfilled template placeholder in the public release. Replaced with "NVIDIA Corporation". Happy to adjust to a specific team alias/email if maintainers prefer one — I didn't want to guess at an internal contact.

Test plan

• ruff check / ruff format --check pass
• pyproject.toml still parses as valid TOML after the edit
• Full pytest tests/ suite passes (339 passed, 3 pre-existing skips) — no code behavior changed

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[sgharghabi]

Thanks for the fix, it looks good to me.
Would you please also add the fix of sdg_basic to sdg_simple?

[Anilreddy2309]

Fixed — pushed a commit changing sdg_basic → sdg_simple in the --workflow help text.

Separately, while looking at that line I noticed training_sft (the other example in that same help string) also isn't a real workflow name — the actual registered workflow is just sft (e.g. nvflow/recipes/finance/workflows/sft/base.yaml). It's not scoped to this one line though — training_sft shows up in a handful of other places too (docstrings in core/base_stage.py, core/stage_registry.py, core/workflow_runner.py, and scripts/run_flow.py). Happy to fix it here or as a separate PR, whichever you'd prefer — didn't want to expand this PR's scope without checking first.

[sgharghabi]

Let's keep that as a separate PR.
The current code changed sounds good!
cc @psgundecha-nv for the final approval