fix(gitea-prs): document inline-comment field-name asymmetry

An independent clean-context audit of the newly-authored gitea-prs skill
flagged that old_line_num/new_line_num (write path, pull_request_review_write
create) and position/old_position (read path, get_review_comments) name the
same concept differently — the same class of write/read field mismatch that
produced the review_scomments typo elsewhere in this domain. Adds one
clarifying sentence to references/reviews.md so an agent skimming only one
side doesn't assume symmetric field names.

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

@@ -39,3 +39,5 @@ A review is not a single write. It moves through states:
 - `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`.
 
 **`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.
+
+**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.