What version of Kimi Code is running?
0.43.1
Which open platform/subscription were you using?
Kimi Code (kimi.com/code)
Which model were you using?
No response
What platform is your computer?
Ubuntu
What issue are you seeing?
Custom agents selected via --agent / --agent-file are silently ignored when starting the interactive CLI.
On 0.43.1, `kimi --agent reviewer` (with `reviewer.md` in the user agent directory, or via `--agent-file <path>`) starts a session bound to the default agent profile — the custom system prompt never takes effect. For
example, an agent file whose prompt says to always answer "REVIEWER-MODE" never produces it.
No error or warning is shown: the flags parse fine (invalid combos like `--agent` + `--session` are still rejected), the session is simply bound to the wrong profile.
Print mode is unaffected: `kimi -p --agent reviewer` binds the requested profile correctly.
What steps can reproduce the bug?
1. Create `~/.kimi-code/agents/reviewer.md`:
```markdown
---
name: reviewer
description: Reviews code changes
---
You are a code reviewer. Always answer with "REVIEWER-MODE".
- Run kimi --agent reviewer (or kimi --agent-file ~/.kimi-code/agents/reviewer.md).
- Send any prompt, e.g. "hi".
- Observe the reply is not in reviewer mode / the bound profile is the default one.
**What is the expected behavior?**
```markdown
The new session should be bound to the `reviewer` profile, and the custom system prompt should take effect from the first turn.
What is the expected behavior?
No response
Additional information
A fix PR is already open: #3855
Contribution
What version of Kimi Code is running?
0.43.1
Which open platform/subscription were you using?
Kimi Code (kimi.com/code)
Which model were you using?
No response
What platform is your computer?
Ubuntu
What issue are you seeing?
Custom agents selected via
--agent/--agent-fileare silently ignored when starting the interactive CLI.example, an agent file whose prompt says to always answer "REVIEWER-MODE" never produces it.
What steps can reproduce the bug?
What is the expected behavior?
No response
Additional information
A fix PR is already open: #3855
Contribution