chore: update markdown link check rule

[junczhu]

Description

What this PR does / why we need it:

Added replacement pattern into markdown link check rule to the config file for CI.

Reference: https://github.com/tcort/markdown-link-check#config-file-format

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, using fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when the PR gets merged):

Fixes CI markdown link failure

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Helm Chart Change (any edit/addition/update that is necessary for changes merged to the main branch)
• This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration

• CI Test: https://github.com/ratify-project/ratify/actions/runs/12762384606/job/35570824996?pr=2030

Checklist:

• Does the affected code have corresponding tests?
• Are the changes documented, not just with inline documentation, but also with conceptual documentation such as an overview of a new feature, or task-based documentation like a tutorial? Consider if this change should be announced on your project blog.
• Does this introduce breaking changes that would require an announcement or bumping the major version?
• Do all new files have appropriate license header?

Post Merge Requirements

• MAINTAINERS: manually trigger the "Publish Package" workflow after merging any PR that indicates Helm Chart Change

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

see 5 files with indirect coverage changes

[susanshi]

Hi @junczhu , given this is the ratify broken link, lets fix the broken link. The link should be "https://ratify.dev/docs/troubleshoot/security#build-attestations"

[susanshi]

There is a point for discussion here, that we cannot ensure all links are active in proposals. @akashsinghal ,@binbin, should we consider moving implemented proposals to /archive?