[Suggestion]Add community AI-assisted first-pass PR review workflow

## Feature Request

**For English only**, other languages will not be accepted.

Please pay attention on issues you submitted, because we maybe need more details.
If no response anymore and we cannot make decision by current information, we will **close it**.

Please answer these questions before submitting your issue. Thanks!

### Is your feature request related to a problem?
Yes. ShardingSphere has a large volume of pull requests. Committers often need a lot of time for the first-round review: checking whether the PR description matches the real code path, whether compatibility and tests are covered, and whether there are obvious gaps before a human deep review.

This first-pass triage is important, but it is also repetitive and time-consuming. As a result, contributors may wait longer for actionable feedback, and committers spend review bandwidth on issues that could have been caught earlier with a structured checklist.

### Describe the feature you would like.

I would like ShardingSphere to discuss and optionally pilot an **accountable AI first-pass PR reviewer** as a community process enhancement (not as an unsupervised merge bot).

#### Proposed scope

1. A dedicated GitHub account used only for AI-assisted PR review, with clear public disclosure in the profile (AI assistant + human owner/contact).
2. The assistant performs a structured first-pass review on selected PRs, for example:
- problem understanding and whether the patch matches the claimed intent
- runtime/call-path check against real code
- compatibility and user-facing behavior impact
- test adequacy and obvious regression risks
- documentation/description accuracy
- clear separation of blockers vs non-blocking suggestions
3. Human committers remain the final reviewers and decision makers for merge.

#### Explicit non-goals / guardrails

1. The AI assistant must not be the sole required approving reviewer.
2. The AI assistant must not merge PRs, close issues, or change repository settings.
3. All AI reviews should be traceable to a named human owner who is responsible for the account.
4. Start as an optional pilot (for example docs / small fixes / first-time contributor PRs), not a mandatory gate for all PRs.

#### Why this may help ShardingSphere

1. Faster, more consistent first-round feedback for contributors.
2. Less repetitive triage load for committers.
3. Better review quality if the assistant is guided by ShardingSphere-specific review standards, rather than a generic third-party lint bot.

#### Open questions for the community

1. Do we want this as an official pilot, or only allow individual committers to experiment first?
2. Should AI `APPROVE` be informational only and excluded from required review counts?
3. Which PR types should be in the first pilot scope?
4. Who should be the human owner/operator of the assistant account?
5. Should this be documented in contributor/reviewer guidance if the pilot works well?

I am happy to help with a draft review template, pilot criteria, and sample reviews for community evaluation.

The issue names no files, tests, or entry points. Start by reviewing the proposed pilot scope and open questions with the community; done would be an agreed, accountable workflow with documented human-review guardrails.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.