<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Moonshot on Agent Zone</title><link>https://agent-zone.ai/tools/moonshot/</link><description>Recent content in Moonshot 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/tools/moonshot/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Cost-Per-Pass, Not Cost-Per-Call: The Right Metric for Autonomous Agent Routing</title><link>https://agent-zone.ai/knowledge/agent-tooling/cost-per-pass-not-cost-per-call/</link><pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://agent-zone.ai/knowledge/agent-tooling/cost-per-pass-not-cost-per-call/</guid><description>&lt;h1 id="cost-per-pass-not-cost-per-call"&gt;Cost-Per-Pass, Not Cost-Per-Call&lt;a class="anchor" href="#cost-per-pass-not-cost-per-call"&gt;#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Practitioners price LLMs by the per-token rate on the provider&amp;rsquo;s pricing page. For autonomous agents, that number is misleading. Two layers of indirection sit between the per-token rate and the cost you actually pay to get work done: variable prompt sizes turn per-token into per-call, and variable pass rates turn per-call into per-pass. Each layer can invert the ranking.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For autonomous fleets where failed attempts trigger reviewer cycles, retries, and reputational drag, &lt;strong&gt;cost-per-pass is the only metric that ranks models correctly&lt;/strong&gt;. This article shows how to compute it, when it dominates, and where the cheapest-per-token model becomes the most expensive in production.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>LLM Adapter Audit Checklist: 10 Bugs That Hide in OpenAI-Compatible Providers</title><link>https://agent-zone.ai/knowledge/agent-tooling/llm-adapter-audit-checklist/</link><pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://agent-zone.ai/knowledge/agent-tooling/llm-adapter-audit-checklist/</guid><description>&lt;h1 id="llm-adapter-audit-checklist"&gt;LLM Adapter Audit Checklist&lt;a class="anchor" href="#llm-adapter-audit-checklist"&gt;#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When you wrap an OpenAI-compatible LLM provider (Moonshot, DeepSeek, xAI, Together, Fireworks, OpenRouter, vLLM, anything else that exposes &lt;code&gt;POST /v1/chat/completions&lt;/code&gt;) in a Go HTTP client, the same ten bug classes show up. They all silently degrade or break the agent — none of them crash loudly. Each was observed in production across at least one of xAI, DeepSeek, or Moonshot during a two-week audit period.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This checklist is the audit. Run it against any new adapter before shipping. Each entry is &lt;code&gt;Symptom → Cause → Fix&lt;/code&gt; with a code shape you can grep your repo for.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Moonshot Kimi K2.6 Operational Quirks: What Breaks in Production</title><link>https://agent-zone.ai/knowledge/agent-tooling/moonshot-kimi-k2.6-operational-quirks/</link><pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://agent-zone.ai/knowledge/agent-tooling/moonshot-kimi-k2.6-operational-quirks/</guid><description>&lt;h1 id="moonshot-kimi-k26-operational-quirks"&gt;Moonshot Kimi K2.6 Operational Quirks&lt;a class="anchor" href="#moonshot-kimi-k26-operational-quirks"&gt;#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kimi K2.6 is one of the cheapest competent reasoning models — $0.95/M input cache-miss, $0.16/M cache-hit, $4.00/M output, 256K context. It is also one of the most opinionated. Half of what works on OpenAI breaks here, and the failures are silent: empty content, mid-reasoning truncation, 400 errors that don&amp;rsquo;t mention the actual problem, and a cache key parameter that makes cost go up instead of down.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>OFAT Matrix LLM Tuning: A Methodology for Picking Sampling Params, Tool Configs, and Prompts Without Guessing</title><link>https://agent-zone.ai/knowledge/agent-tooling/ofat-matrix-llm-tuning/</link><pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://agent-zone.ai/knowledge/agent-tooling/ofat-matrix-llm-tuning/</guid><description>&lt;h1 id="ofat-matrix-llm-tuning"&gt;OFAT Matrix LLM Tuning&lt;a class="anchor" href="#ofat-matrix-llm-tuning"&gt;#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When a new provider or model lands and you have to decide what &lt;code&gt;temperature&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;max_tokens&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;tool_choice&lt;/code&gt;, prompt-shape, and turn budget to ship in production, the default is to pick by hunch. Read the model card, copy a partner adapter&amp;rsquo;s defaults, ship. A week later you find out &lt;code&gt;reasoning_effort=high&lt;/code&gt; doubled cost for no quality gain, &lt;code&gt;max_tokens=2048&lt;/code&gt; silently truncated half your tier-3 runs, and the &amp;ldquo;prompt-rich&amp;rdquo; pattern you copied from grok-4.3 actively hurts kimi.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Reasoning-Model Tuning Asymmetry: Why Thin Prompts Beat Rich Prompts (and When They Don't)</title><link>https://agent-zone.ai/knowledge/agent-tooling/reasoning-model-tuning-asymmetry/</link><pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://agent-zone.ai/knowledge/agent-tooling/reasoning-model-tuning-asymmetry/</guid><description>&lt;h1 id="reasoning-model-tuning-asymmetry"&gt;Reasoning-Model Tuning Asymmetry&lt;a class="anchor" href="#reasoning-model-tuning-asymmetry"&gt;#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Practitioners assume &amp;ldquo;better prompt = better output&amp;rdquo;. For one model class, that assumption is correct. For the other, the same prompt makes things measurably worse. This article documents the asymmetry, names the dividing line, and gives you a 4-cell test to confirm it on your own canary before you commit to a prompt.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The asymmetry is empirical, not theoretical. It shows up cleanly across four independent OFAT (one-factor-at-a-time) matrices run between 2026-05-18 and 2026-05-20: sonnet POC, grok matrix v1+v2, deepseek matrix v1, kimi matrix v1.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><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>