[improvement](ci) Accept Astra and Fable 5.1 review receipts

[shuke987]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: N/A

Related PR: #66959

Problem Summary:

A converged local review using GPT-6 Astra or Claude Fable 5.1 is rejected by the PASS receipt validator with "model is not allowed", even when the review meets the existing effort, commit, reviewer, and findings requirements.

Extend the exact model allowlist:

• gpt-6-astra: xhigh, max, or ultra.
• claude-fable-5-1 and its Claude Code [1m] form: xhigh or max.

Existing model eligibility and receipt checks are preserved. The hosted runner continues to use GPT-5.6 Sol. The apache/doris-skills allowlist needs a companion update; land the receiver support first.

Model references:

• GPT-6 Astra
• Fable 5.1 migration and effort levels
• Claude Code model configuration

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

• Test

  • Regression test
  • Unit Test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    • python3 .github/scripts/test_validate_review_pass_comment.py — 25 tests passed, including the expanded model/effort subcases.
    • Expanded tests fail against the previous validator and pass with the allowlist extension.
    • Added Fable 5.1 ultra rejection cases; existing insufficient-effort and unlisted-model tests remain unchanged.
    • Whitespace checks passed for both changed files.
  • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:

• Behavior changed:

  • No.
  • Yes. Qualified Astra and Fable 5.1 receipts can satisfy the existing code-review check.

• Does this need documentation?

  • No.
  • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

• Confirm the release note
• Confirm test cases
• Confirm document
• Add branch pick label

[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?

[shuke987]

Local pipeline review — ✅ PASS

schema: doris-repo-review/v1status: PASSpr: apache/doris#67561commit: 62665deda5ca0a2473a479cc2036022b99bb5419base: f75e66f8810b1fa369c2f4d4003593be67fdd887reviewed_at: 2026-09-07T11:43+08:00reviewer: shuke987model: gpt-5.6-soleffort: xhighfindings: {blocker: 0, major: 0, minor: 1, nit: 0}rounds: 1converged: true

Notes for maintainers

None.

_{Reviewed locally with the doris-repo-review pipeline. Repository policy may accept this receipt for the matching commit; it is not a human Apache approval.}

[shuke987]

skip buildall