Document CI and pull request integration - #79

Thanks for documenting the CI and pull-request workflow in both languages. I merged this head with the current main locally and the full suite passes 629/629. The overall receipt-handling guidance is useful, but I found several documentation paths that need correction before merge:

1. The link added to .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md does not work in its intended surface. Once the template is copied into a PR body, ../docs/ci-integration.md resolves to https://github.com/tt-a1i/archify/docs/ci-integration.md, which returns 404. Please use a repository/blob URL that remains valid from a PR body.

2. The Chinese GitHub Actions example runs from working-directory: archify but validates ../examples/agent-tool-call.workflow.json. That file does not exist and the documented command exits 1 with input/read. The English Action example correctly uses examples/agent-tool-call.workflow.json.

3. Both English and Chinese deliver snippets also use ../examples/agent-tool-call.workflow.json while invoking node bin/archify.mjs, which implies the archify/ working directory. These commands reproduce the same ENOENT failure. Please use examples/... or explicitly establish a different working directory and adjust the CLI path consistently.

4. Both guides link to troubleshooting documents that are not present in this PR or on current main: docs/troubleshooting.md and docs/troubleshooting.zh-CN.md. Please remove/defer those links or resolve the dependency on the separate unmerged PR before merging this one.

The package-freshness wording should also be narrowed. Documentation inside the packaged archify/ tree, including references and examples, does require rebuilding archify.zip; only documentation changes outside the packaged tree are exempt. Please also state that scripts/build-zip.sh is run from the repository root.

Small cleanup: git diff --check reports a blank line at EOF in both new Markdown files. There are currently no GitHub check results on this head, so please attach refreshed command receipts after updating both language versions.

Addressed the maintainer review comments in the latest commit. The updated PR description contains the exact verification commands and results.

Thanks for addressing the previous review feedback. I rechecked the latest revision against the current main: the documented validate, deliver, and compare commands all run successfully, the English and Chinese links resolve, and the full suite passes 655/655 after a local merge. The documentation itself looks ready.

The branch is currently four main-branch commits behind and GitHub reports no checks for this head. Please update the branch with the current main so the remote CI suite can run. If those checks are green, this should be ready to approve and merge without further documentation changes.

Thank you again for the work you put into this PR, especially for patiently addressing the earlier review feedback.

After taking another look at the use case, I don't think we should add a separate CI integration guide right now. The workflow here assumes that a repository already contains the full archify/ source tree, so it mainly applies to this repository or a complete fork. Most people use Archify as an installed Skill, which means they cannot copy this workflow into their own project as-is. A fair amount of the remaining material also overlaps with CONTRIBUTING.md and the delivery contract, and maintaining two more mirrored documents would make those instructions easier to drift apart.

This is a product-scope decision rather than a problem with the care you put into the documentation, so I would rather close the PR than ask you to keep revising something we are not ready to support properly.

If you are still interested in contributing, #95 would be a very welcome improvement. It focuses on making the English and Chinese READMEs easier for new users to understand by adding a scenario-first chooser, while keeping the current hero and visual introduction unchanged. You would be very welcome to work on that one.

Thanks again for the contribution and for being responsive throughout the review.