Update review skills and changelogs to use unreleased section

[dkosowski87]

What does this PR do?

• Changes the release process to use Unreleased section in CHANGELOGs for contributors to fill
• Changes the review skill to require that way of working, plus notifying maintainers about the needed version file changes.

Type of Change

• New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)

Checklist

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code where necessary, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• My changes generate no new warnings or errors
• I have updated the documentation accordingly (if applicable)

[github-actions]

👋 Thanks for the pull request! Here is how automated Claude review works here, so you spend credits (and reviewer time) wisely.

🚦 This PR is marked Ready for review, so automated Claude review will run — and every pass spends real credits.

Warning

💸 The Claude reviewer bills in credits, not vibes

Automated review spins up a real agent that reads real code and spends real credits on every pass. It is glad to help — but it is not a rubber duck, a linter you poke in a loop, or a substitute for reading the contributing guide. Treat it like an expensive senior reviewer whose time you booked, and show up prepared.

Draft when unsure, Ready when you mean it:

• 🌱 Not sure the PR is in good shape yet? Keep it (or set it back) as a draft — drafts pause review, so you can push and iterate without burning credits on a moving target.
• 💪 Feel strong about the contents? Mark it Ready for review and the reviewer will take a look.

However you get there, arrive prepared:

• 🧱 Bring a SOLID, thorough PR. Point your local agent at our skills/ to tune it to our guidelines first — or, if you are one of those fabled carbon-based contributors, read them yourself. A half-baked diff costs exactly the same to review as a finished one.
• ✅ Resolve every comment before you re-request review. Re-requesting with threads still open means paying twice for the same conversation.
• 🔁 Do not use CI review as an inner loop for a local agent. The reviewer is not a step-by-step debugger — do the unfolding locally and arrive with the answer, not the search.
• 🙋 If something looks off, ask a human. One question to a maintainer is cheaper and faster than three rounds of agent re-review chasing a misread.

Reviews are not free. A draft costs nothing to review; a Ready PR is a promise that it is worth reviewing.

• Prefer to skip automated review entirely? Add the skip-claude-review label.

[github-actions]

🤖 Claude review started at commit 36068a45d5a4ac26add46114f42aa8ce74a55bd4.

New commits are not auto-reviewed. Add the claude-review label (remove & re-add it to trigger again) when you want another review.

[github-actions]

Medium — incomplete migration leaves contradictory version-bump guidance in this same skill.

This PR updated this "Required companions" bullet to the Unreleased model (contributor adds a ## Unreleased entry; maintainers bump EXECUTION_ENGINE_V1_VERSION at release time). But two other lines in this same file were left on the old policy and now directly contradict it:

• Line 24 (7. **FLAG — EE compatibility**): "If the PR bumps EXECUTION_ENGINE_V1_VERSION, require a changelog entry + version-assert test updates …" — still tells the reviewer to require contributor version-assert test updates.
• Line 49 (Standards, **EE compatibility**): "Only bump it (+ changelog + version-assert tests) when the block forces an EE behavior change (Revert "Add tracklet recognition workflow blocks" #2527 …)" — still instructs the contributor to bump the EE version and update version-assert tests.

Both conflict with the new line 62 here and with the sibling review-workflows-execution-engine skill (updated in this PR to "Never demand an EXECUTION_ENGINE_V1_VERSION … bump from a contributor" and "Version-assertion tests change only in the maintainer release PR") and review-topic-backward-compat-and-versioning §3. A reviewer loading review-workflows-blocks on a block PR that forces an EE change would get conflicting guidance and could still demand a contributor version bump — exactly what this PR aims to eliminate.

Please update lines 24 and 49 to the Unreleased model (contributor adds the ## Unreleased entry; maintainers bump the EE version + version-assert tests at release).

[github-actions]

Review summary

This PR migrates the review skills, the cursor rule, the review prompt, and the two changelog docs from a contributor-owned version bump model to an Unreleased-section model (contributors record changes under ## Unreleased; maintainers select and bump versions at release time). The changelog additions are docs-only and don't feed any runtime/test parsing, so they're safe. The bulk of the migration is internally consistent across the skills.

One blocking-quality finding (Medium):

• review-workflows-blocks/SKILL.md — the migration was applied to the "Required companions" bullet (line 62) but not to lines 24 and 49 of the same file, which still instruct the reviewer to require a contributor EXECUTION_ENGINE_V1_VERSION bump + version-assert test updates. Those now contradict this PR's own change and the sibling review-workflows-execution-engine / review-topic-backward-compat-and-versioning updates. Details inline. This should be fixed so the skill doesn't re-introduce the demand this PR is removing.

No other blocking findings. No IMPORTANT clarification questions are open.

Commands used: gh pr diff, gh api .../commits|comments|reviews, Grep/Read over .claude/skills/** (note: the checkout restores .claude/skills from the base branch, so the PR's skill changes were reviewed via the diff, not the working tree).

Re-review is not automatic — after pushing the fix, remove and re-add the claude-review label to trigger a fresh pass.

Reviewed at HEAD: 36068a4