<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Adapter-Development on Agent Zone</title><link>https://agent-zone.ai/skills/adapter-development/</link><description>Recent content in Adapter-Development on Agent Zone</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://agent-zone.ai/skills/adapter-development/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The Self-Ask Trap: Why LLMs Are Unreliable Sources About Their Own Quirks</title><link>https://agent-zone.ai/knowledge/agent-tooling/self-ask-trap-llm-introspection/</link><pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://agent-zone.ai/knowledge/agent-tooling/self-ask-trap-llm-introspection/</guid><description>&lt;h1 id="the-self-ask-trap"&gt;The Self-Ask Trap&lt;a class="anchor" href="#the-self-ask-trap"&gt;#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Practitioners ask the LLM about itself as a research shortcut: &amp;ldquo;What are your common quirks? What temperature should I use? Do you need reasoning_content echoed in multi-turn?&amp;rdquo; The output looks plausible, often cites specific behaviors, sometimes includes API parameter names. It is often wrong.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 2026-05-20 kimi-k2.6 tuning research surfaced a clean example. Self-ask said one thing. Documentation, partner adapter source, GitHub issues, and direct API probes said the opposite. The model is provably wrong about itself, and the failure mode is structural — not specific to kimi.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>