WIP: add deepseek-v4-flash to builder pool

[astronautas]

…adata

Linked issue

Closes #

What does this PR do?

Checklist

• I have read CONTRIBUTING.md and agree to the CLA
• This PR links to an open issue above
• Tests pass locally (pnpm run test)
• Lint passes (pnpm run check)
• Documentation updated if behavior changed

[readme-ai-writer]

Documentation Changes Added

Page	Section	Action	Summary
model-apis-overview	Guides	📝 Updated	Updated deepseek-v4-flash description in the Available models table to reflect its expanded capabilities including lightweight build tasks.

🔗 View all changes in ReadMe

---

Actions

• Merge documentation branch with PR merge
• Delete documentation branch with PR close

_{If neither actions are selected, on PR close/merge the docs branch in ReadMe will remain open.}

[kimchi-review]

Kimchi Code Review

Property	Value
Commit	c745fc3
Author	@astronautas
Files changed	0
Review status	Completed
Comments	2 (2 warning)
Duration	517083s

Summary

📊 Review Score: 74/100 (overall code quality — 0 lowest, 100 highest)
⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 2/5 (1 = trivial, 5 = very complex)

🧪 Tests: yes — Tests were added in src/extensions/orchestration/model-registry/builtin-models.test.ts to verify build guidelines for deepseek-v4-flash, and model-roles.test.ts was updated to assert the new builder pool membership. However, the new builtin-models test uses the wrong sentinel string ("ignored" instead of "ignore") in its guard.

📝 Found 2 issue(s). See inline comments for details.

What to expect

Kimchi will analyze the changes in this pull request and post:

• A summary of the overall changes
• Inline comments on specific lines with findings categorized by issue type

The review typically completes within a few minutes. This comment will be updated once the review is ready.

Interact with Kimchi

• @getkimchi review — re-trigger a full review on the latest commit
• @getkimchi summary — regenerate the PR summary
• @getkimchi ignore — skip this PR (no review will be posted)
• Reply to any inline comment to ask follow-up questions or request clarification

Configuration

Reviews are configured by your organization admin.
Review instructions, excluded directories, and severity thresholds can be adjusted per repository in the Kimchi dashboard.

---

Powered by Kimchi — AI-powered code review by CAST AI

[github-actions]

👋 Thanks for your first PR on kimchi! A maintainer will review it soon.
Please make sure your PR links to an open issue and your checklist is complete.

[kimchi-review]

📊 Review Score: 74/100 (overall code quality — 0 lowest, 100 highest)
⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 2/5 (1 = trivial, 5 = very complex)

🧪 Tests: yes — Tests were added in src/extensions/orchestration/model-registry/builtin-models.test.ts to verify build guidelines for deepseek-v4-flash, and model-roles.test.ts was updated to assert the new builder pool membership. However, the new builtin-models test uses the wrong sentinel string ("ignored" instead of "ignore") in its guard.

📝 Found 2 issue(s). See inline comments for details.

[kimchi-review]

⚠️🐛 Bug

The test guards against the literal string "ignored", but MODEL_CAPABILITIES uses "ignore" as its sentinel value. This makes the if (!deepseek || deepseek === "ignored") return guard ineffective and the expect(deepseek).not.toBe("ignored") assertion misleading. If the map entry were ever set to "ignore", the test would either fail with a confusing property-access assertion or produce a TypeScript compile error because the ModelCapabilities | "ignore" union is not properly narrowed.

💡 Suggestion: Change both occurrences of "ignored" to "ignore" so the guard and assertion correctly handle the ModelCapabilities | "ignore" union type: expect(deepseek).not.toBe("ignore") and if (!deepseek || deepseek === "ignore") return.