Kimi Prompt Generator

Kimi decomposes long-horizon work across sub-agents — name the decomposition.

Goal: [THE END STATE]

Available tools: web search, file system, code execution, sub-agents.

Suggested decomposition:
1. [SUBTASK] — research
2. [SUBTASK] — implementation
3. [SUBTASK] — verification

Constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]. Stop and ask if [STOP CONDITION].

Report the plan first, then execute, then summarise what each sub-agent produced and how you reconciled conflicts.

Uses Kimi's very large context — long material first, question after.

[PASTE THE FULL DOCUMENT SET]

---

Based on everything above, [THE TASK].

Requirements:
- Cite the document and section behind each point.
- Surface contradictions between documents rather than smoothing them over.
- Note explicitly if any part of the input seems truncated or unreadable.

Format: [FORMAT].

Long-horizon coding, which is Kimi's strongest mode.

## Goal
Build [FEATURE] end to end.

## Stack
[LANGUAGE + VERSION], [FRAMEWORK], [DATABASE], [TEST FRAMEWORK]. Conventions: [LINTER/STYLE].

## Existing code
[PASTE RELEVANT FILES OR REPO TREE]

## Requirements
[NUMBERED FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS]

## Constraints
No new dependencies. Preserve [EXISTING BEHAVIOUR]. Migrations must be reversible.

## Output Format
Plan → each new/changed file in full → migration steps → tests → how to verify locally.

Framed so Thinking mode has something worth deliberating over.

Problem: [THE PROBLEM]

Known constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]
Known unknowns: [WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW]

Work through this carefully, checking each edge case, then give the final answer.

Before finalising, double-check the result against the constraints above and state whether it satisfies all of them. If it cannot, say which constraint has to give.

Search-and-synthesise work with a defined evidence standard.

Research [TOPIC] and produce a report for [AUDIENCE].

Scope: [WHAT'S IN, WHAT'S OUT]. Timeframe: [RECENCY REQUIREMENT].

Requirements:
- Cite every factual claim with a source and date.
- Distinguish primary sources from commentary.
- Include a "what the sources disagree about" section.
- Flag where the evidence is thin rather than filling the gap with plausible prose.

Format: executive summary, findings, disagreements, gaps, sources. [WORD COUNT] words.

Instant-mode shaped: tight, answer-shaped, no preamble.

Extract [WHAT] from the document below into [FORMAT, e.g. a Markdown table with columns X, Y, Z].

Rules: source values verbatim, blank cell where absent, no invented entries, no commentary before or after the output.

Document:
[PASTE DOCUMENT]