[qwen-code-dev-bot]

What this PR does

This PR applies Prettier formatting to docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md, the daemon event-schema doc whose pending-prompt queue table currently violates the repository's Prettier rules. The change is purely mechanical: asterisk emphasis (*genuinely queued*) is normalized to underscores (_genuinely queued_) and the surrounding table column padding is adjusted to match. Four lines change in a single table; no wording, code, or configuration is modified.

Why it's needed

Main-branch CI is red. The Lint & Static job's Run Prettier step (node scripts/lint.js --prettier) fails on every main run since commit 1aba19c87889e8bd55f5249b81e21d8de3f056dd, because this file landed without Prettier's emphasis-marker normalization. Until it is fixed, every subsequent main CI run fails in the lint stage before tests are even reported. Tracked in #13585.

Reviewer Test Plan

How to verify

1. On main at 1aba19c878, run node scripts/lint.js --prettier — it reports [warn] docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md and exits non-zero.
2. On this branch, run the same command — it prints All matched files use Prettier code style! and exits zero.
3. Confirm the diff renders identically as markdown: the pending-prompt table content is unchanged apart from *genuinely queued* becoming _genuinely queued_.

Evidence (Before & After)

N/A — non-UI docs formatting change.

Tested on

OS	Status
🍏 macOS	⚠️
🪟 Windows	⚠️
🐧 Linux	✅

Environment (optional)

Verified on the GitHub Actions runner checkout (Ubuntu, Node 22.x): node scripts/lint.js --prettier, npm run build, npm run typecheck, and npm run lint all pass.

Risk & Scope

• Main risk or tradeoff: none — whitespace and emphasis-marker formatting only; markdown rendering is unchanged.
• Not validated / out of scope: why the file landed without formatting (PR-time check gap) is not addressed here; only the immediate main-CI breakage is fixed.
• Breaking changes / migration notes: none.

Linked Issues

Fixes #13585

中文说明

本 PR 做了什么

本 PR 对 docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md 应用 Prettier 格式化——该 daemon 事件 schema 文档中的 pending-prompt 队列表格当前违反了仓库的 Prettier 规则。改动纯属机械性:星号强调(*genuinely queued*)被规范化为下划线(_genuinely queued_),周围表格列的填充宽度随之相应调整。仅单个表格中的 4 行发生变化;未修改任何措辞、代码或配置。

为什么需要

Main 分支 CI 处于红色失败状态。自提交 1aba19c87889e8bd55f5249b81e21d8de3f056dd 起,Lint & Static 任务的 Run Prettier 步骤(node scripts/lint.js --prettier)在每次 main 运行中都失败,因为该文件合入时未完成 Prettier 的强调标记规范化。在修复之前,后续每次 main CI 运行都会在 lint 阶段失败,甚至来不及报告测试结果。跟踪于 #13585。

审查者测试计划

如何验证

1. 在 main 的 1aba19c878 提交上运行 node scripts/lint.js --prettier——会报告 [warn] docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md 并以非零码退出。
2. 在本分支上运行相同命令——输出 All matched files use Prettier code style! 并以零码退出。
3. 确认 diff 作为 markdown 渲染效果一致:pending-prompt 表格内容除 *genuinely queued* 变为 _genuinely queued_ 外无其他变化。

前后对比证据

N/A —— 非 UI 的文档格式化改动。

已测试平台

操作系统	状态
🍏 macOS	⚠️
🪟 Windows	⚠️
🐧 Linux	✅

环境(可选)

在 GitHub Actions runner 检出环境(Ubuntu,Node 22.x)上验证:node scripts/lint.js --prettier、npm run build、npm run typecheck 和 npm run lint 全部通过。

风险与范围

• 主要风险或取舍:无——仅为空白和强调标记的格式化;markdown 渲染效果不变。
• 未验证 / 超出范围:该文件为何未经格式化便合入(PR 阶段检查缺口)不在本 PR 处理范围内;此处仅修复 main CI 的直接故障。
• 破坏性变更 / 迁移说明:无。

关联 Issue

Fixes #13585

[qwen-code-dev-bot]

Autofix Report: Main CI Prettier Failure (#13585)

Issue

Main-branch CI run 37583624862 failed at commit 1aba19c87889e8bd55f5249b81e21d8de3f056dd: the Lint & Static (ubuntu-latest, Node 22.x) job failed in the Run Prettier step (node scripts/lint.js --prettier).

Reproduction

Checked out the exact failing commit and ran the exact failing CI step. It reproduced immediately:

$ node scripts/lint.js --prettier
Running Prettier...
Checking formatting...
[warn] docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md
[warn] Code style issues found in 1 file. Run Prettier with --write to fix.

Root Cause

docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md (pending-prompt queue events table) contains a row using asterisk emphasis (*genuinely queued*) inside a wide markdown table. Prettier normalizes emphasis markers to underscores (_genuinely queued_) and re-pads the surrounding table column widths to match. The file landed on main without that normalization, so the full-tree Prettier check fails on every subsequent main CI run.

Fix

Applied prettier --write to the file. The resulting diff is 4 changed lines in a single table — emphasis marker normalization plus column re-padding, with no content change:

-| ... Published only when the prompt is *genuinely queued* — ... |
+| ... Published only when the prompt is _genuinely queued_ — ... |

No source, test, or configuration files were touched, so no behavioral change, no new guard or branch, and no focused Vitest run or mutation probe applies. No settings source changed; the build's schema regeneration produced no diff.

Verification

• node scripts/lint.js --prettier (the exact failing CI step) — failed before the fix ([warn] docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md), passed after the fix (All matched files use Prettier code style!, exit 0)
• npm run build — passed (exit 0). Note: the first attempt failed with EACCES: permission denied, mkdir '/home/github-runner/.cache/node/corepack/v1' because corepack's default cache directory is not writable in this sandbox; re-ran with COREPACK_HOME=/tmp/autofix-37587996670/corepack and the build succeeded
• npm run typecheck — passed (exit 0)
• npm run lint (ESLint) — passed (exit 0)
• Pre-commit hook (prettier --write on staged files) — passed during commit
• git status --porcelain — clean after commit; only docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md changed

Focused Vitest runs: N/A (docs-only formatting change; no package source touched).

The workflow's independent CI remains the final verification gate.

中文说明

Autofix 报告:Main 分支 CI Prettier 检查失败(#13585)

问题

Main 分支 CI 运行 37583624862 在提交 1aba19c87889e8bd55f5249b81e21d8de3f056dd 处失败:Lint & Static (ubuntu-latest, Node 22.x) 任务在 Run Prettier 步骤(node scripts/lint.js --prettier)中失败。

复现

检出确切的失败提交并运行完全相同的 CI 失败步骤,立即复现:

$ node scripts/lint.js --prettier
Running Prettier...
Checking formatting...
[warn] docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md
[warn] Code style issues found in 1 file. Run Prettier with --write to fix.

根因

docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md(pending-prompt 队列事件表格)中有一行在宽幅 markdown 表格内使用了星号强调(*genuinely queued*)。Prettier 会将强调标记统一为下划线(_genuinely queued_),并相应重新填充周围表格列的宽度。该文件合入 main 时未完成这一规范化,导致此后每次 main 分支 CI 的全仓 Prettier 检查都会失败。

修复

对该文件执行了 prettier --write。最终 diff 仅为单个表格中的 4 行改动——强调标记规范化加列宽重新填充,无任何内容变化:

-| ... Published only when the prompt is *genuinely queued* — ... |
+| ... Published only when the prompt is _genuinely queued_ — ... |

未触碰任何源码、测试或配置文件,因此无行为变化、无新增守卫或分支,无需运行针对性 Vitest 或变异探针。未改动 settings 源文件;构建过程中的 schema 再生成未产生任何 diff。

验证

• node scripts/lint.js --prettier(即 CI 中失败的确切步骤)——修复前失败([warn] docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md),修复后通过(All matched files use Prettier code style!,退出码 0)
• npm run build——通过(退出码 0)。说明:首次尝试因 EACCES: permission denied, mkdir '/home/github-runner/.cache/node/corepack/v1' 失败,原因是 corepack 默认缓存目录在此沙箱中不可写;改用 COREPACK_HOME=/tmp/autofix-37587996670/corepack 后构建成功
• npm run typecheck——通过(退出码 0)
• npm run lint(ESLint)——通过(退出码 0)
• Pre-commit 钩子(对暂存文件执行 prettier --write)——提交时通过
• git status --porcelain——提交后干净;仅 docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md 一个文件发生变化

针对性 Vitest 运行:不适用(仅文档格式化改动,未触碰任何包源码)。

工作流的独立 CI 仍是最终验证关卡。

---

🧠 Handled by Qwen Code · model/模型 kimi-k3 · CLI 0.25.0

[qwen-code-review-bot]

✅ Qwen Triage finished — view run. See the stage comments in this thread for the result.

✅ Qwen Triage 已完成 —— 查看运行。结果见本线程中的各阶段评论。

[qwen-code-review-bot]

Thanks for the PR!

Template looks good ✓

Problem: observed, not theoretical — and I confirmed it independently rather than taking the description's word. Main's Lint & Static job has been failing in its Run Prettier step on every full-profile run since this doc landed, and the log names exactly one file: [warn] docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md → Code style issues found in 1 file. I read three failing job logs from today (28512f1b at 06:00, 1753948e at 06:34, 1aba19c8 at 07:07 UTC) — same file, same single-file verdict each time. One correction: the breakage did not start at 1aba19c8 (#13505). The offending table came in with #13281 (8505479d, merged 04:45 UTC); #13505 is merely the commit that tracking issue #13585 happened to key on.

Direction: aligned. Red main CI poisons every later full-profile run, and a formatting-only repair is the right shape of fix for it.

Size: not applicable — one documentation file, +4/−4, no core paths.

Approach: minimal and mechanical, exactly what npm run format emits for this table. The more interesting question is the one the PR correctly scopes out: how did unformatted markdown reach main behind a green PR? The CI records answer it — #13281 was classified docs_only, and in that profile every lint step is guarded off (ci.yml says so outright: "docs_only runs no lint lane"). Its Run Prettier step is recorded skipped while the job still reported success. So docs-only PRs are formatted-checked by nothing, and main's push run is the first thing that ever looks. That gap will keep producing PRs like this one; it deserves a follow-up issue, but it is not this PR's job.

Risk: no elevated risk signals — no high-risk paths touched.

Moving on to code review. 🔍

中文说明

感谢贡献！

模板完整 ✓

问题： 是已观测到的故障，不是理论性加固——而且我没有只信 PR 描述，自己独立核实过。main 分支的 Lint & Static 任务在 Run Prettier 步骤上，自该文档合入后每次 full-profile 运行都失败，日志只点名一个文件：[warn] docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md → Code style issues found in 1 file。我读了今天三个失败任务的日志（28512f1b 06:00、1753948e 06:34、1aba19c8 07:07 UTC），每次都是同一个文件、同一个"仅 1 个文件"结论。一处更正：故障不是从 1aba19c8（#13505）开始的。有问题的表格来自 #13281（8505479d，04:45 UTC 合入）；#13505 只是跟踪 issue #13585 恰好记录的那个提交。

方向： 对齐。main CI 变红会污染后续每一次 full-profile 运行，用纯格式化修复来处理是正确的形态。

规模： 不适用——单个文档文件，+4/−4，未触及核心路径。

方案： 改动最小且机械，正是 npm run format 对这个表格会产生的输出。更值得追问的是 PR 已明确排除在范围外的那个问题：未格式化的 markdown 是怎么在 PR 绿灯的情况下进入 main 的？CI 记录给了答案——#13281 被分类为 docs_only，而该 profile 下所有 lint 步骤都被条件关闭（ci.yml 原文写着："docs_only runs no lint lane"）。它的 Run Prettier 步骤记录为 skipped，但整个 job 仍报告 success。也就是说 docs-only PR 完全没有格式化检查，main 的 push 运行是第一个真正看到它的地方。这个缺口会持续产生类似本 PR 的修复；值得开一个后续 issue，但不是本 PR 的职责。

风险： 无升级风险信号——未触及高风险路径。

进入代码审查 🔍

— Qwen Code · qwen3.8-max-2026-09-02

_{Reviewed at e2ca565a565706ceecaffc7438526045581739a9 · re-run with @qwen-code /triage}

[qwen-code-review-bot]

Code review

The diff is content-preserving — no wording, no semantics, only Prettier normalization. Two things change in one table, and I checked both against what Prettier actually does rather than assuming.

Emphasis: *genuinely queued* → _genuinely queued_. Prettier's markdown printer normalizes emphasis to underscores; .prettierrc.json sets no override (semi, trailingComma, singleQuote, printWidth, tabWidth only), so the default applies. Rendered output is identical.

Padding: Prettier pads every cell in a column to max(text width) + 2. On main the Trigger column is inconsistent across the five rows — 428 (header), 430 (separator), 430, 432, 411 chars — which is the violation. On this branch all five are 411, and 411 = 409 + 2, where 409 is the text width of the longest cell, the untouched pending_prompt_completed row. All five rows also have identical total length (511 chars), so every column in the table is uniform, not just this one. The em dash is load-bearing for that arithmetic: Prettier's width function counts East-Asian-ambiguous characters as 1, which is the only reading under which the dash-free and one-dash rows land on the same width — under a width-2 reading the pending_prompt_started row would need 412.

I also swept the remaining 365 lines for anything else Prettier would flag in this file: no other single-asterisk emphasis, no other non-uniform table, no trailing whitespace, no tabs, no CRLF, no triple blank lines, file ends with a newline. So the four changed lines are the complete delta and nothing dirty is left behind — the fix should turn the lane green rather than move the warning to the next line.

No blockers, no AGENTS.md violations, nothing to simplify. One nit, non-blocking: the description's "fails on every main run since commit 1aba19c8" points at the wrong PR — the content landed in #13281, as detailed in the gate comment.

CI evidence (unattended run — I did not execute any PR-side code; this is read from the checks on the reviewed commit)

The headline is that this PR's green Lint & Static does not prove the fix. The job ran under profile docs_only (job log: Selected CI profile: docs_only), and in that profile the Run Prettier step is guarded off — step 27 is recorded skipped, and the job reports success anyway. That is the same no-op pass that let #13281 through in the first place, so the one check that would settle this PR's claim is precisely the one that never ran. Everything else on the commit is green or profile-skipped; nothing failed.

So the evidence for the fix is the static analysis above, not CI. The PR body also states that node scripts/lint.js --prettier passed on a runner checkout — that is the author's claim, which I have not re-run and am not presenting as evidence.

Sandboxed verification would settle this: @qwen-code /verify — an A/B run against the base build would show node scripts/lint.js --prettier failing on base and passing on this head, which is the only empirical proof available short of merging and watching main's full-profile run. The author has write access, so the lane needs no sponsorship.

Nothing user-visible here, so no terminal capture applies (N/A).

Checks on the reviewed commit at review time:

Check	Conclusion
Lint & Static (ubuntu-latest, Node 22.x)	success (Run Prettier step skipped)
Test (ubuntu-latest, Node 22.x)	success
Test (macos-latest, Node 22.x)	skipped
Test (windows-latest, Node 22.x)	skipped
Integration Tests (no-AK, No Sandbox)	success
Integration Tests (CLI, No Sandbox)	skipped
Desktop Shell (ubuntu-22.04)	success
Desktop Shell (windows-2022)	success
web-shell E2E Smoke (ubuntu-latest, Node 22.x)	skipped
Classify PR	success
authorize	success
delay-automatic-review	queued (bot orchestration)
triage	in_progress (this run)

中文说明

代码审查

diff 不改变任何内容——没有措辞、没有语义变化，只有 Prettier 规范化。一个表格里有两处变化，两处我都对照 Prettier 的实际行为核实过，而不是想当然。

强调标记： *genuinely queued* → _genuinely queued_。Prettier 的 markdown 输出器会把强调统一为下划线；.prettierrc.json 没有覆盖这一项（只设了 semi、trailingComma、singleQuote、printWidth、tabWidth），所以走默认规则，渲染结果完全一致。

填充宽度： Prettier 会把某列每个单元格补齐到「该列最长文本宽度 + 2」。main 上 Trigger 列五行互不一致——428（表头）、430（分隔行）、430、432、411 字符——这正是违规点。本分支上五行都是 411，而 411 = 409 + 2，409 就是最长单元格（未被改动的 pending_prompt_completed 行）的文本宽度。五行总长度也完全相同（511 字符），说明整张表的每一列都对齐了，不只是这一列。这里的破折号是关键：Prettier 的宽度函数把「East Asian 歧义宽度」字符按 1 计算，这也是唯一能让「无破折号行」和「一个破折号行」得到相同宽度的解释——若按宽度 2 计算，pending_prompt_started 行需要 412。

我还扫了文件其余 365 行，检查 Prettier 可能标记的其他问题：没有其他单星号强调、没有其他宽度不一致的表格、没有行尾空格、没有制表符、没有 CRLF、没有连续三个空行、文件以换行结尾。所以这 4 行改动就是完整增量，文件里没有残留的脏格式——这个修复应该能让该检查项真正变绿，而不是把警告推到下一行。

没有阻塞问题，没有违反 AGENTS.md，也没有可简化的地方。一个小提示（非阻塞）：描述里"自提交 1aba19c8 起每次 main 运行都失败"指错了 PR——内容实际来自 #13281，详见 gate 评论。

CI 证据（无人值守运行——我没有执行任何 PR 侧代码；以下结论来自被审查提交上的检查记录）

关键点是：本 PR 那个绿色的 Lint & Static 并不能证明修复有效。 该 job 运行在 docs_only profile 下（job 日志：Selected CI profile: docs_only），而在该 profile 下 Run Prettier 步骤被条件关闭——第 27 步记录为 skipped，job 却照样报告 success。这与当初放行 #13281 的是同一个空跑绿灯，也就是说，唯一能验证本 PR 主张的检查恰恰是那个从未运行的检查。该提交上其余检查全绿或因 profile 跳过，没有任何失败。

因此本修复的证据是上面的静态分析，而不是 CI。PR 正文还声明在 runner 检出上运行 node scripts/lint.js --prettier 通过——那是作者的自述，我没有重跑，也不作为证据呈现。

沙箱验证可以坐实这一点：@qwen-code /verify——与 base 构建做 A/B 对比，可以看到 node scripts/lint.js --prettier 在 base 上失败、在本 head 上通过；除了合入后观察 main 的 full-profile 运行，这是唯一可得的实证。作者具备 write 权限，该通道无需 sponsor。

本 PR 没有用户可见变化，因此终端实录不适用（N/A）。

— Qwen Code · qwen3.8-max-2026-09-02

_{Reviewed at e2ca565a565706ceecaffc7438526045581739a9 · re-run with @qwen-code /triage}

[qwen-code-review-bot]

Confidence: 4/5 — mechanically correct and verified against Prettier's own formatting rules; the single deduction is that no executed Prettier run backs it, because this PR's CI skips that step.

My independent proposal before reading the diff was: run the formatter on that one file, commit exactly the resulting diff, and separately chase down why a green PR was allowed to land unformatted markdown. That is precisely what this PR is, so there is no simpler path I can offer — four lines in one doc file is the floor for repairing a red main.

What convinced me is not the green check (which is a no-op here, as Stage 2 explains) but the arithmetic: the repaired table's Trigger column is uniform at 411 chars = the untouched longest cell's 409 + 2, every row totals 511 chars, and a sweep of the rest of the file finds no other emphasis marker, non-uniform table, trailing whitespace, tab, CRLF or blank-line run that Prettier would object to. The change is exactly Prettier's fixed point for this file, so it should clear the lane instead of shifting the warning.

If I owned this in six months I would thank the author: the diff is reviewable in ten seconds, it cannot regress runtime behavior, and it unblocks every subsequent full-profile CI run. My one reservation is about the system, not the PR — docs_only runs no lint lane, so a docs-only PR is formatted-checked by nothing and main's push run is the first observer. This is the second recorded instance of that shape (the ci.yml comment above the freshness check describes #11117/#11216/#11378 the same way). Worth a follow-up issue to run the Prettier lane on docs_only too — it is cheap, deterministic, and exactly the property that lane was split out to provide. Not a condition of this merge.

Approving, pinned to the reviewed commit.

中文说明

信心度：4/5 —— 机制上正确，并已对照 Prettier 自身的格式化规则验证；唯一扣分点是没有任何"真正执行过 Prettier"的运行结果作支撑，因为本 PR 的 CI 跳过了该步骤。

在读 diff 之前，我自己的方案是：对那一个文件跑一遍格式化工具，只提交由此产生的 diff，另外去追查为什么一个绿灯 PR 能把未格式化的 markdown 合进来。本 PR 正是这个方案，所以我给不出更简的路径——修一条变红的 main，一个文档文件里的 4 行已经是下限。

真正说服我的不是那个绿色检查（如 Stage 2 所述，它在这里是空跑），而是算术：修复后表格 Trigger 列统一为 411 字符 = 未被改动的最长单元格 409 + 2，每行总长都是 511 字符；对文件其余部分的扫描也没有发现 Prettier 会反对的其他强调标记、宽度不一致的表格、行尾空格、制表符、CRLF 或连续空行。这个改动正是该文件的 Prettier 不动点，所以它应该能让检查真正通过，而不是把警告挪个位置。

如果六个月后由我来维护，我会感谢作者：diff 十秒就能审完，不可能造成运行时回归，并且解除了后续每一次 full-profile CI 运行的阻塞。我唯一的保留意见针对的是机制而非本 PR——docs_only 不运行任何 lint 通道，因此 docs-only PR 完全没有格式化检查，main 的 push 运行是第一个观察者。这已是同类形态第二次被记录下来（ci.yml 中新鲜度检查上方的注释以同样方式描述了 #11117/#11216/#11378）。建议开一个后续 issue，让 docs_only 也运行 Prettier 通道——它成本低、结果确定，正是当初把该通道拆分出来所要提供的性质。这不是本次合入的前提条件。

已批准，并绑定到被审查的提交。

— Qwen Code · qwen3.8-max-2026-09-02

_{Reviewed at e2ca565a565706ceecaffc7438526045581739a9 · re-run with @qwen-code /triage}

[qwen-code-review-bot]

LGTM, looks ready to ship. ✅

[qwen-code-review-bot]

📄 Docs-only change — the automatic review ran at --effort medium (verified findings, no reverse audit; medium posts no inline comments). Outcome:

Review complete: pr-13587 — Comment, not posted (0 Critical, 1 Suggestion)

Reviewed head: e2ca565a565706ceecaffc7438526045581739a9. Full report in the workflow run. For a full high-effort review with inline comments, comment @qwen-code /review.

中文说明

📄 纯文档变更 —— 自动评审以 --effort medium 运行（发现已验证、无反向审计；medium 不发布行内评论），结果见上方引用行。评审的 head：e2ca565a565706ceecaffc7438526045581739a9。完整报告见 workflow 运行；如需带行内评论的完整高强度（high-effort）评审，请评论 @qwen-code /review。

[qwen-code-dev-bot]

✅ AutoFix round 1 finished — view run. See this round's report below.

中文说明

✅ AutoFix 第 1 轮已完成 —— 查看运行。本轮报告见下方。

[qwen-code-dev-bot]

🤖 Reviewed the latest feedback — no changes needed. Why, point by point: · 已审阅最新反馈——无需改动。逐点说明原因如下：

Autofix review round — no action taken

Feedback received

The only feedback newer than the last evaluation is one issue-level comment from @qwen-code-review-bot reporting the automated review outcome at --effort medium:

Review complete: pr-13587 — Comment, not posted (0 Critical, 1 Suggestion)

• 0 Critical findings and the review event is Comment, not Request changes.
• No inline comments were posted (medium effort posts none), so the single Suggestion's content is not present in the review threads. The full report lives in the linked GitHub Actions run, which this headless autofix session cannot read — it has no GitHub credentials. Implementing an unseen suggestion would mean guessing at its content, so there is no verifiable, evidence-backed change to make for it.
• No failed checks and no still-red checks are listed.

Independent verification performed

Since the Suggestion text is unavailable, the PR's own diff and current state were re-inspected directly:

• The PR is a docs-only Prettier formatting fix in docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md: the emphasis *genuinely queued* becomes _genuinely queued_ (identical rendered output) and the surrounding table separator/rows are re-aligned to match. No semantic content changed.
• npx prettier --check docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md — passed (All matched files use Prettier code style!), confirming the PR achieves its stated purpose of restoring Prettier compliance.
• A scan of the rest of the document found no other formatting inconsistency (the remaining **…** markers are strong emphasis, which Prettier intentionally keeps distinct from _…_ italics).

Conclusion

There is nothing actionable in this round: no Critical or reproduced defect, no failing check, no inline finding to resolve, reply to, decline, or defer. If the unposted Suggestion matters, a maintainer can trigger a high-effort review with @qwen-code /review (as the bot's own comment notes), which will post it as an inline comment that a future autofix round can act on.

中文说明

Autofix 评审轮次 —— 未做任何改动

收到的反馈

上次评估之后唯一的反馈是 @qwen-code-review-bot 的一条 issue 级评论，报告了以 --effort medium 运行的自动评审结果：

Review complete: pr-13587 — Comment, not posted (0 Critical, 1 Suggestion)

• 0 个 Critical 发现，评审结论为 Comment，而非 Request changes。
• 未发布任何行内评论（medium 级别不发布行内评论），因此那一条 Suggestion 的具体内容不在评审线程中。完整报告位于链接的 GitHub Actions 运行记录中，而本 headless autofix 会话没有 GitHub 凭据，无法读取。在看不到建议内容的情况下动手实现等同于猜测，因此不存在可验证、有证据支撑的改动可做。
• 没有失败的检查，也没有持续红色的检查。

已执行的独立验证

由于无法获取该 Suggestion 的文本，本次直接重新检查了 PR 自身的 diff 和当前状态：

• 该 PR 是 docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md 的纯文档 Prettier 格式化修复：强调标记 *genuinely queued* 变为 _genuinely queued_（渲染结果完全相同），并相应重新对齐了周围表格的分隔行和数据行。没有语义内容变化。
• npx prettier --check docs/developers/daemon/09-event-schema.md —— 通过（All matched files use Prettier code style!），确认该 PR 达成了恢复 Prettier 合规的既定目标。
• 对文档其余部分的扫描未发现其他格式不一致（保留的 **…** 标记是粗体强调，Prettier 有意将其与 _…_ 斜体区分开）。

结论

本轮没有可执行的事项：没有 Critical 或可复现的缺陷，没有失败的检查，也没有需要解决、回复、拒绝或延后的行内发现。如果那条未发布的 Suggestion 确实重要，维护者可以按 bot 评论中的提示用 @qwen-code /review 触发高强度评审，届时它会以行内评论的形式发布，后续的 autofix 轮次即可据此处理。

Base-conflict check · 基分支冲突检查: no conflict with main. · 与 main 无冲突。

---

🧠 Handled by Qwen Code · model/模型 kimi-k3 · CLI 0.25.0

[qwen-code-review-bot]

Released in v0.25.1.