docs(pages): update CLI reference and i18n for --format sarif

[lizhengfeng101]

Description

PR #820 added --format sarif as a third output format for ocr review and ocr scan, but documentation and i18n strings still only mention text and json. Users who discover the feature via --help have no corresponding documentation or GitHub Actions example to guide integration with GitHub Code Scanning.

Scope

CLI reference docs (all locales)

• pages/src/content/docs/en/cli-reference.md — lines 92, 94, 319
• pages/src/content/docs/zh/cli-reference.md — lines 89, 91, 304
• pages/src/content/docs/ja/cli-reference.md — equivalent lines
• pages/src/content/docs/ru/cli-reference.md — equivalent lines

Update --format description from "text or json" to "text, json, or sarif" and note that --preview does not honor --format sarif.

i18n strings

• pages/src/i18n/en.ts:170 — docs.reviewFlag4Desc: "Output format: text or json"
• pages/src/i18n/en.ts:226 — docs.scanFlag9Desc: "Output format: text or json"
• Other locale files if they carry the same keys

GitHub Actions usage example

Add a section (or expand the existing CI example) showing how to pipe SARIF output to github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@v3:

- name: Run OCR review
  run: ocr review --from ${{ github.event.pull_request.base.sha }} --to ${{ github.sha }} --format sarif > results.sarif

- uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@v3
  with:
    sarif_file: results.sarif

action.yml (optional, separate PR may be better)

• action.yml:279 currently hard-codes --format json. Consider exposing a format input or adding a dedicated SARIF upload step. This may warrant its own PR if it changes the action's interface.

Acceptance Criteria

• All four locale CLI reference docs mention sarif in --format description
• --preview row notes that sarif is not supported
• i18n strings updated for all locales
• At least one GitHub Actions SARIF upload example in the docs
• make pages-build passes (or equivalent docs build)

Context

Follow-up from #820 (feat: add SARIF output format). The author noted in the PR description that docs would be handled separately. Reviewer @lizhengfeng101 flagged the specific locations in the second review round.