fix(gitea-prs): correct reference drift against gitea-mcp v1.7.0

The reference files were last verified against v1.3.0 -- references/sources.md
still said so. PR #106 re-verified the write side only, so three defects had
accumulated on the read/review side. All three reproduced against the deployed
server before being fixed; get_gitea_mcp_server_version reports v1.7.0.

- reviews.md forbade review_comments on the "get" response and directed callers
  to review_scomments, which does not exist. The upstream slim.go typo was
  corrected; a live pull_request_read on PR #106 returns "review_comments":1 and
  no review_scomments key. review_comments is an integer count, not comment
  objects -- distinct from the get_review_comments method. Also fixed in
  pull-requests.md's response-shape list.
- pull_request_review_write grants seven methods; only four were documented.
  reply_comment, resolve_thread, unresolve_thread and the comment_id parameter
  had zero mentions anywhere in the skill. Documented from the schema, in a
  Comment threads section kept outside the numbered review state machine --
  they are not lifecycle states.
- review_id was documented as required for get_review_comments. It is optional;
  omitting it lists every inline comment on the PR. Confirmed behaviourally:
  get_review without it errors, get_review_comments without it returns [].

sources.md now records v1.7.0 as the last-verified version, so the next reader
knows what these files were checked against.

Refs #99

plugins/gitea/.apm/skills/gitea-prs/references/reviews.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ source_keys:
 
 # PR review execution detail
 
-Parameter signatures below are cross-checked live against the deployed gitea-mcp server tool schema, not copied from the plugin's research doc verbatim — same sourcing discipline as `references/pull-requests.md`.
+Parameter signatures below are cross-checked live against the deployed gitea-mcp server tool schema, not copied from the plugin's research doc verbatim — same sourcing discipline as `references/pull-requests.md`. Last verified against **v1.7.0**, as reported by `get_gitea_mcp_server_version`.
 
 ## Review state machine
 
@@ -21,23 +21,34 @@ A review is not a single write. It moves through states:
 ## `pull_request_review_write`
 
 **Parameters:**
-- `method` (string, required) — `"create"` | `"submit"` | `"delete"` | `"dismiss"`
+- `method` (string, required) — `"create"` | `"submit"` | `"delete"` | `"dismiss"` | `"reply_comment"` | `"resolve_thread"` | `"unresolve_thread"`
 - `owner` (string, required)
 - `repo` (string, required)
-- `pull_number` (number, required)
-- `review_id` (number, required for every method except `"create"`, which returns the ID to use for the follow-up `submit`/`delete`/`dismiss` call)
+- `pull_number` (number, required for every method except `"resolve_thread"` and `"unresolve_thread"`, which locate the thread from `comment_id` alone) — the schema's own `required` list is only `method`/`owner`/`repo`, so a missing `pull_number` surfaces as a runtime error, not client-side validation
+- `review_id` (number) — required for `"submit"`, `"delete"` and `"dismiss"`; `"create"` returns the ID to use for that follow-up call. Not used by `"reply_comment"`, `"resolve_thread"` or `"unresolve_thread"`, which key off `comment_id` instead
+- `comment_id` (number, required for `"reply_comment"`, `"resolve_thread"` and `"unresolve_thread"`) — an individual review comment's ID, obtained from `pull_request_read method: "get_review_comments"`. For the two thread methods this must be the thread's **first** comment, not an arbitrary one in it
 - `state` (string, optional) — `"APPROVED"` | `"REQUEST_CHANGES"` | `"COMMENT"` | `"PENDING"` — set on `"create"` (typically `"PENDING"`, or a terminal state to create-and-submit in one call if the server supports it) or `"submit"` (terminal state)
-- `body` (string, optional) — overall review comment text
+- `body` (string, optional) — the overall review comment text on `"create"`/`"submit"`; on `"reply_comment"` it is the reply text and is the payload of the call
 - `commit_id` (string, optional, for `"create"`) — anchors inline comments to a specific commit SHA (typically the PR's current head SHA from `pull_request_read method: "get"`)
 - `message` (string, optional, for `"dismiss"`) — dismissal reason
 - `comments` (array of objects, optional, for `"create"`) — inline comments, each: `{path, body, old_line_num, new_line_num}` — `path` is the file path, `body` is the comment text, `new_line_num` anchors to a line in the new (added) side of the diff, `old_line_num` anchors to a line in the old (removed) side; use whichever side the comment applies to, not both
 
+## Comment threads
+
+Three further methods act on an individual review comment rather than on a review as a whole. They sit outside the state machine above — a thread can be replied to or resolved whatever state its parent review is in — and none of them takes a `review_id`.
+
+- **`reply_comment`** — posts `body` as a reply to the comment named by `comment_id`, threading under it rather than starting a new top-level comment. Takes `pull_number`.
+- **`resolve_thread`** — marks the thread containing `comment_id` resolved. Pass the thread's **first** comment ID; another ID in the same thread is not equivalent. Does not take `pull_number`.
+- **`unresolve_thread`** — reopens a resolved thread, under the same first-comment rule.
+
+Get the `comment_id` from `pull_request_read method: "get_review_comments"`. Call it with no `review_id` to list every inline comment on the PR, then pick the thread to act on; scoping it to one `review_id` only finds threads opened by that review.
+
 ## Reading reviews (`pull_request_read`)
 
 - `method: "get_reviews"` — array of review summaries: `id`, `state`, `body`, `user` (login), `comments_count`, `submitted_at`, `html_url`, `stale` (bool — the PR was pushed to after this review was submitted, meaning it may be outdated), `official` (bool), `dismissed` (bool).
-- `method: "get_review"` (requires `review_id`) — single review detail.
-- `method: "get_review_comments"` (requires `review_id`) — array of inline comments: `id`, `body`, `path`, `position`, `old_position`, `diff_hunk`, `user`, `html_url`, `created_at`, `updated_at`.
+- `method: "get_review"` (requires `review_id` — omitting it fails with `review_id is required`) — single review detail.
+- `method: "get_review_comments"` (`review_id` **optional** — omit it to list every inline comment on the PR in one call, rather than one review's) — array of inline comments: `id`, `body`, `path`, `position`, `old_position`, `diff_hunk`, `user`, `html_url`, `created_at`, `updated_at`.
 
-**`review_scomments` typo:** the full PR object returned by `pull_request_read method: "get"` includes a field named `review_scomments` (a count), not `review_comments` — a source-level misspelling in gitea-mcp v1.3.0's `slim.go`. Do not write code or instructions that reference `review_comments` on that response; it will always be `undefined`. This is distinct from the `get_review_comments` method above, which is spelled correctly and returns the actual comment objects.
+**`review_comments` on the `"get"` response is a count, not the comments.** The full PR object returned by `pull_request_read method: "get"` carries `review_comments` as an integer — the number of inline review comments. It is distinct from the `get_review_comments` method above, which returns the actual comment objects; reading the count is no substitute for that call. Older gitea-mcp releases misspelled this key as `review_scomments`; the misspelling was corrected upstream and the deployed v1.7.0 response carries no such key, so treat any instruction that reaches for `review_scomments` as stale.
 
 **Inline-comment field names differ between write and read.** The `comments` array on `pull_request_review_write method: "create"` uses `old_line_num`/`new_line_num`. The `get_review_comments` read response uses different field names for the same concept — `position` (new-side line) and `old_position` (old-side line). Do not assume the same key names apply on both sides of the round trip.