[improvement](ai-review) decouple review status from approval permission

[wzz6423]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: N/A

Related PR: #66376

Problem Summary:
The AI reviewer cannot submit a GitHub approval. This change makes the reviewer always submit a COMMENTED review and record a strict PASS or FAIL decision. The workflow verifies the decision and its own comment on the current PR head, then updates the code-review commit status: PASS is success; FAIL, missing/invalid decision, or an execution error is failure.

Release note

The AI reviewer now always submits a COMMENTED review and writes a strict PASS or FAIL decision before posting it. The workflow verifies both the decision and the bot comment on the current head, then sets the code-review commit status to success for PASS or failure for FAIL and execution errors. Subsequent PR sync events preserve these terminal success and failure states.

Check List (For Author)

• Test

  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    • Parsed both workflows with Ruby YAML.
    • Checked all 23 run blocks with bash -n.
    • Verified PASS, FAIL, invalid, and missing decision fixtures with jq.
    • Verified success, failure, and pending sync-state fixtures.
    • Fork E2E PR: [test](ai-review) validate COMMENTED status flow wzz6423/doris#2
      • /review run https://github.com/wzz6423/doris/actions/runs/30869153019 submitted a COMMENTED PASS review and set code-review to success.
      • ready_for_review sync https://github.com/wzz6423/doris/actions/runs/30870183860 preserved success.
      • reopened sync https://github.com/wzz6423/doris/actions/runs/30870261228 preserved an injected failure instead of resetting it to pending.

• Behavior changed:

  • Yes. The code-review status is now the authoritative AI review result and does not depend on an APPROVED or REQUEST_CHANGES review state.

• Does this need documentation?

  • No.

[hello-stephen]

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?