docs(contributing): clarify commit guidelines structure

- Kept "Conventional Commits" under "Commit Guidelines"
- Did not rename "Development Workflow" to "Development Cycle and
  Branches"
- Cleaned up formatting based on review feedback

Signed-off-by: dharapandya85 <dharapandya@gmail.com>

Author: dharapandya85

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -6,12 +6,11 @@ Thank you for your interest in contributing to `patch-hub`! This document outlin
 
 1. [Code of Conduct](#code-of-conduct)
 2. [Getting Started](#getting-started)
-3. [Development s](#development-workflow)
-4. [Coding Style](#coding-style)
-5. [Commit Guidelines](#commit-guidelines)
-6. [Pull Request Guidelines](#pull-request-guidelines)
-7. [Issue Reporting](#issue-reporting)
-8. [License](#license)
+3. [Development Workflow](#development-workflow)
+4. [Commit Guidelines](#commit-guidelines)
+5. [Pull Request Guidelines](#pull-request-guidelines)
+6. [Issue Reporting](#issue-reporting)
+7. [License](#license)
 
 
 ## Code of Conduct
@@ -105,7 +104,7 @@ Commit contents, in other words, the changes the commit introduce should:
 - Not destabilize the compilation, so `cargo build` shouldn't fail.
 - Not fail in CI jobs.
 
-## Use Conventional Commits
+### Use Conventional Commits
 
 `patch-hub` follows the use of [Conventional Commits v1.0.0](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) specification. Commit message use the format:
 `<type>(<scope>)!: <description>`