Couple of things:

1. I'd love to see smaller example files used. The example files alone for this PR are MASSIVE. In total this PR is adding roughly 60k lines. It's not exactly easy to review.
2. It would be nice to have a comment block at the top of the example files explaining how exactly they were generated and what the problem with the file is. While the names are nice, I can't imagine that you change 50k+ lines for formatting failures

Approving because I don't see any stand out problems but I obviously haven't read every single line in depth.

Couple of things:

1. I'd love to see smaller example files used. The example files alone for this PR are MASSIVE. In total this PR is adding roughly 60k lines. It's not exactly easy to review.

Replaced the files with short ones that are 200 lines long at most.
It was an intentional decision to select files from various FreeRTOS Repos:

1. To show that the formatting actions then also work for files we have.
2. To make my life easier by not needing to generate C or H files that had issues, as I just grabbed files that failed checks when implementing the clang-format action.
   Additionally, certain FreeRTOS Files will fail to parse through uncrustify using uncrustify version .72. Where the idea was to grab long ones so that if you're testing the action itself we see that these long files will handle the new formatting changes, if one was changing the .clang-format file for example.
   But not going to hold up this PR about this since both you and @paulbartell have requested shorter files.

2. It would be nice to have a comment block at the top of the example files explaining how exactly they were generated and what the problem with the file is. While the names are nice, I can't imagine that you change 50k+ lines for formatting failures

Do you still feel this way with the current naming convention?
I have also added a README explaining the purpose of these files.