(Disclosure: AI-assisted. I drafted and edited with AI tools. The same-prompt API runs, the comparison notes, and the conclusions are mine.)
I did not need another model review. I needed a script I could re-run: one fixture, three asks, one compatible endpoint, four ids. On 4 November 2026 that harness ran Kimi K3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, GPT-5.1, and Qwen3.8 Max against the same handwritten weekly notes. Below is the recipe, the HTTP gotcha, and where over-completion showed up.
The harness pipe for Kimi K3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, GPT-5.1, and Qwen3.8 Max
Four browser tabs mix login walls and upload UX into the score. The pipe keeps only what the comparison needs:
- identical user content
- identical task wording
- swap
modelonly - tick every owner/date against the scribble before anyone else sees the draft
Base URL: https://api.crazyrouter.com/v1. Ids: kimi-k3.1-pro, deepseek-v4.1-flash, gpt-5.1, qwen3.8-max. Callable chat ids: chat models page. Field notes: Crazyrouter docs entry. Measured: interface-side first-pass text. Consumer-app uploads and plugins stay out of scope.
curl https://api.crazyrouter.com/v1/chat/completions \ -H "Authorization: Bearer $CRAZYROUTER_API_KEY" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{ "model": "deepseek-v4.1-flash", "messages": [{"role":"user","content":"整理下面周会速记……"}] }' Put the key in an environment variable. Kimi K3.1 Pro returned HTTP 400 on one unsupported sampling field; removing it restored a normal reply. Treat vendor error text as truth when you reproduce. A 200 on a short prompt only proves that day’s short-text route for that id.
Fixture design before scoring DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GPT-5.1
~40 minutes of product standup scribbles: product Yun, engineer Chen, designer Mao. Topics covered a payment-page QA gate, a coupon display bug, an early membership draft, and a post-call ban on publishing the English word overlapping. Gaps were intentional—no P1 id, some todos without owners—so the model had to mark uncertainty or invent.
Three fixed asks:
- Clarify one spoken remark; invent nothing.
- ≤3 conclusions + todos; unknowns = “to confirm.”
- Paste-ready table; rewrite overlapping as “stacked on top of each other”; no email; no calendar writes.
Prompts stayed in Simplified Chinese, matching the notes. English here explains method and results; it is not a claim that I re-ran the suite in English.
Weekly notes are a harsh fixture on purpose. A clean table that invents “Chen owns QA” can mis-route work for a week. That failure mode teaches more than a composite Elo.
How I choose among Kimi K3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, GPT-5.1, and Qwen3.8 Max outside the harness
I still write three lines first: what small job repeats weekly, how I will know the AI helped, and whether I will spend five minutes on the same pack. Then task → daily product → model id. Company, engine, and app are different layers. I delay paid upgrades until I can name a free-tier blocker (length, caps, export).
Scan by job shape: spoken rewrite for mail/remarks; browsing plus citations for fresh facts; whole-file intake for long PDFs; and a hard split between “writes a snippet” and “touches your file” for code or sheets.
Over-completion notes from Kimi K3.1 Pro versus DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, GPT-5.1, and Qwen3.8 Max
All four first drafts were usable. The gap was fill-in boldness, not prose quality.
| Model | First-pass feel | Check first |
|---|---|---|
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | Short; keeps “to confirm” | Hard-assigned owners (often slower) |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Fast lists | Relative days → calendar dates; unsupported owners |
| GPT-5.1 | External-sync tone; clean tables | Inferred people |
| Qwen3.8 Max | Smooth Chinese; medium density | Missed uncertainty labels |
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash once turned “this Thursday” into a concrete month-day and put Chen on the QA gate—notes only said engineering thought Thursday was possible. GPT-5.1 showed similar fill-in. Kimi K3.1 Pro more often left the hole visible. Qwen3.8 Max read like a calm internal sync.
Routing for this chore: fast editable draft → DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GPT-5.1; fewer silent inventions → Kimi K3.1 Pro; internal-Chinese tone → Qwen3.8 Max. The human checklist stays mandatory.
Prompt contract that works on GPT-5.1 and Qwen3.8 Max (and the other two)
Stop at “please write the notes.” Lock goal, material, hard limits, and delivery shape. Task-three skeleton (Chinese in the real runs):
From the notes below, write ≤3 conclusions, then a todo table (item / owner / time-or-status / note). Use “to confirm” when unclear; do not guess. Externally write overlapping as “stacked on top of each other.” Do not email. Do not write a calendar.
If the ask is fuzzy, request five clarifying questions first. On revision, name the cell—“row 2 owner → to-confirm”—instead of “make it better.” Completeness beats collecting prompt packs.
Agent, Skill, and MCP after the Kimi K3.1 Pro–Qwen3.8 Max harness
Paste → Markdown is one conversation. Agent-style loops (confirm format, reread, mark gaps, write a file, self-check) need tools that actually exist. A Skill stores weekly house rules—often SKILL.md plus templates. MCP-style connectors attach external systems; protocol ≠ service ≠ permission. None of the four models opened a calendar or sent mail. Chat claims are not actions. Habit first: same-prompt comparison and scribble checks; add Agent / Skill / MCP when a real capability is missing.
Five steps to reuse with Kimi K3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, GPT-5.1, or Qwen3.8 Max
- Pick one assistant you will open daily.
- Use today’s real standup scribble.
- Put goal, background, limits, and delivery format in one message.
- Ask for one concrete fix on pass two.
- Skill-ize repeating rules later; touch MCP or Agent only when calendar/docs automation is real.
Three burns: browsing ≠ verifying owners; long “thinking” ≠ reading an unpasted attachment; one weak draft ≠ brand swap—separate thin notes, thin prompts, and model over-completion first.
Keep list after testing Kimi K3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, GPT-5.1, and Qwen3.8 Max
A harness makes the comparison honest. All four can draft; over-completion is the publish risk. Prompt completeness sets the floor. Agent / Skill / MCP are later layers. Eye-checking the scribble usually beats swapping models.
I still paste three sentences before the notes: “Here are this week’s notes. Here is the format. Mark unclear items as to-confirm; do not email for me.” This round used https://api.crazyrouter.com/v1. Web-app uploads and plugins are outside this article’s scope.
