fix(code-review): stop the inline pass reading as the session's final output

plugins/tend-ci-runner/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -94,3 +94,5 @@ On a core-logic change, take one more pass as a fresh reviewer holding the verif
 Return the findings to the caller as a list of at most 10 (at most 4 for a peripheral change), ranked most-severe first, each with `file`, `line`, `summary`, `failure_scenario`, and its verdict. If nothing survives verification, say so in one line. Don't call the `ReportFindings` tool and don't publish an artifact — the caller owns the output.
 
 Tell the caller which mode ran (fanned-out angles with a subagent verify, or a single inline pass) so it can weigh the findings — context for the caller, not content for the review it posts.
+
+**Running from a caller skill, this is a sub-step, not the answer.** When the pass runs in the caller's own session rather than a subagent, there is no separate caller to return to — "return the findings" means hand them to the caller's next step and continue there. A session that emits them as its final message ends with the caller's work unfinished and nothing posted, leaving the findings reachable only from the session log. Invoked directly, with no caller, the findings *are* the answer.

plugins/tend-ci-runner/skills/review/SKILL.md

@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ Scale its depth to how core the change is:
 - Peripheral or mechanical (config, dependency bumps, test-only, docs that don't assert how the code behaves): tell it the change is peripheral, so it runs the short angle set in one pass.
 - The project's core logic, or prose asserting how it behaves: tell it the change is core, so it fans the angles out and sweeps for gaps. Prose is checked by reading the code it describes, so a one-line Markdown diff can still be core.
 
-What counts as core is repo-specific; let the project's own guidance (CLAUDE.md, a repo review skill) or your judgment decide. Both passes feed one verdict: fold its findings into the review you submit in step 6. It only reports back — it never posts a review, comment, or commit of its own, so the dedup and single-review path is preserved.
+What counts as core is repo-specific; let the project's own guidance (CLAUDE.md, a repo review skill) or your judgment decide. Both passes feed one verdict: fold its findings into the review you submit in step 6. It only reports back — it never posts a review, comment, or commit of its own, so the dedup and single-review path is preserved. Its findings are not the review: when it returns, continue to step 6.
 
 ### 6. Submit