Ethical Stack.

Kimi Code CLI

Official terminal coding agent with interactive sessions, project context, and configurable model/provider setup.

Score calculation

(3 + 8 + 1 + 7) ÷ 4 = 4.8

4 of six dimensions rated. Unrated dimensions are excluded from the average.

Full scoring method ↗
Setup details

Current Moonshot Kimi Code CLI. The previous Kimi CLI repository is archived and no longer maintained.

What fits your needs

Local CLI application with a model service selected through account login or provider/API configuration.

Coding workflow

The CLI runs in a local project directory and can support interactive software engineering tasks.

See the evidence
Tradeoffs to expect

Prompts leave the device

Using a hosted model sends relevant prompt/context to the configured model endpoint; local CLI installation is not local inference.

See the evidence
How to switch

Install current release

Use the current Kimi Code repository and migration documentation; the old kimi-cli repository is archived.

See the evidence
Practical questions

Review tool permissions

Inspect the project files and shell actions the agent can access, and confirm its model/provider configuration.

See the evidence

Energy practices

3/10↑

For the Kimi Code CLI; inference runs through the configured model provider boundary, public documentation establishes the service or route but not its request-level physical footprint. The CLI repository defines a client and model-routing boundary; the reviewed sources don’t confirm an energy-saving token or task budget. Electricity sourcing is not mapped to this route.

See the evidence

This practices/transparency assessment covers the Kimi Code CLI; inference runs through the configured model provider boundary. The sources establish how the service or endpoint is exposed and don’t confirm a documented resource-saving control; they do not give a measured per-request energy, emissions or water value. The disclosure point reflects the stated operating boundary, not a product footprint, and company-wide electricity reporting is not attributed to this route.

1 + 1 reporting + 0 electricity + 1 controls = 3/10. This grades documented practices and transparency.

The reviewed sources don’t confirm request-level electricity, emissions or water; the actual serving facility and its power mix are also not mapped to Kimi Code CLI; inference runs through the configured model provider.

Reporting1/3
The reviewed documentation defines the Kimi Code CLI; inference runs through the configured model provider boundary. It gives an operating-scope description, not a dated quantitative energy, carbon or water report for this route.
Electricity sourcing0/3
No reviewed source maps Kimi Code CLI; inference runs through the configured model provider to a disclosed electricity mix or time-and-location-matched clean-power supply. The route's actual electricity use and emissions therefore remain unestablished.
Resource controls1/3
Kimi Code lets users select the model and set model context/output limits in configuration. These are workload controls; the reviewed sources do not measure the energy saved by them.

Water disclosure

Water reporting has not been assessed for this choice.

Training data

—Depends on the model↑

CLI supports configured model/provider routes, so training data rights vary by selected backend and exact model release.

See the evidence

User prompts, model-improvement settings, and the original training data are different evidence questions. The reviewed product documentation does not identify a fixed model version and complete training-data rights record for Current Moonshot Kimi Code CLI. The previous Kimi CLI repository is archived and no longer maintained., so this assessment remains unscored.

Exact model selection, release version, source inventory, permissions, post-training data, and creator-remedy scope remain unresolved.

Your data & privacy

—Not enough evidence↑

The current CLI is a local software client, but prompt handling follows the authenticated account or configured API provider and selected model route.

See the evidence

Moonshot’s current repository documents an interactive local terminal agent and configurable sessions; it doesn’t show one privacy policy for prompts sent through every login or provider configuration. The retired kimi-cli repository is archived, so do not use its historical behavior as current policy.

Session storage, telemetry, provider-side retention, API terms and model route depend on the current release and configured account/provider.

Openness

8/10↑

The current official Kimi Code CLI repository publishes source code for a locally installed terminal agent; this does not open the hosted model or API.

See the evidence

Moonshot publishes the current Kimi Code CLI repository and implementation. Users can inspect the harness code, while the selected model weights, hosted account, API terms, and external integrations retain separate boundaries.

The score reflects service-level inspectability and control, not usefulness or model quality.

Confirm the current repository license and release; model weights and service terms remain separately scoped.

Worker protections

1/10↑

Moonshot’s reviewed Kimi terms, company site and model pages do not disclose workforce conditions, labor grievance mechanisms or supplier audit outcomes.

See the evidence

The sources reviewed provide product, terms, or corporate information but no qualifying disclosure about conditions for data annotators, evaluators, moderators, or infrastructure workers. This is a disclosure gap within the checked materials, not evidence that workers are mistreated or that no labor policy exists. These findings concern the developer or operator. This product’s use in a particular deployment needs separate evidence.

1 + 0 pay & conditions + 0 worker voice & remedy + 0 evidence & follow-through = 1/10. This grades documented worker safeguards, not a measured rate of mistreatment.

Worker counts, locations, pay, labor protections, worker voice mechanisms, supplier coverage, and independent audit or remediation outcomes were not established in the sources reviewed.

Pay & conditions0/3
Reviewed sources provide no qualifying disclosure of worker conditions; this zero is limited to the checked material and is not an exhaustive claim.
Worker voice & remedy0/3
No qualifying worker-voice mechanism or documented worker grievance outcomes were disclosed in the reviewed material.
Evidence & follow-through0/3
No independent labor audit results, worker-level corroboration, or remediation outcomes were disclosed in the reviewed material.
Workers rubric ↗

Military ties

7/10Not established↑

No Moonshot defense contract or military deployment is identified in the reviewed company and model sources.

See the evidence

Moonshot’s reviewed Kimi terms, company disclosures and model repository do not name a defense customer, contract or deployment. Third-party availability of its models doesn’t show Moonshot’s own military relationship; the public material reviewed does not supply a customer-complete accounting. These findings concern the developer or operator. This product’s use in a particular deployment needs separate evidence.

7 base + 0 safeguard adjustment = 7/10 (0 of 9 safeguard points; every 3 adds 1). No military relationship was established in the cited sources. This ranks above known defense ties without claiming a verified clean record.

Complete contract texts, undisclosed customers, end-use restrictions, actual workload deployment, and independent compliance or outcome reports are unavailable in the reviewed public material.

Use restrictions0/4
The reviewed terms or policy material contains no qualifying military-use restriction beyond general lawfulness/export compliance; this zero is limited to the reviewed source set.
Enforcement & oversight0/3
No military-specific review, enforcement, or remedy mechanism was disclosed in the sources reviewed.
Relationship disclosure0/2
No military-specific relationship or military-specific transparency policy was disclosed in the materials reviewed; this is a scoped disclosure finding.

The reviewed Kimi platform terms and Moonshot model materials do not identify a defense contract or military deployment. Model availability through third parties or permissive downstream deployment doesn’t confirm Moonshot’s own government or military customer relationship.

Military rubric ↗

BDS targets

Not listed↑

We did not find Moonshot AI among the named targets in the two official BNC campaign lists. This is a limited list check, not BDS approval.

See the evidence

Moonshot AI is not a named target in the checked lists, but BDS uses selective campaigns, so absence cannot establish a clean record. Running downloaded weights locally is a different decision from paying the developer or a cloud host; check the host as well. These findings concern the developer or operator. This product’s use in a particular deployment needs separate evidence.

This review covers the named targets in the BNC consumer/pressure guide and No Tech campaign, not every BDS campaign, local group, investment or supplier. Lists and ownership can change. A company’s absence from these lists is not an endorsement or proof that it has no relevant relationships.

More from Moonshot AI

All sources

Side by side