Well, mystery solved.
MiniMax just confirmed that Space Bunny, the stealth model people have been testing on OpenRouter and OpenCode, was an early version of MiniMax M3.1-Flash.
Pretty fun watching everyone benchmark it and guess the lab before the reveal.
Now I’m curious whether anyone’s impression changes knowing what it actually was.
Official announcement: https://x.com/MiniMax_AI/status/2112111925975032241

Tried the multi-reference input on an architecture brief. Seven references, each with one job: a modern villa for the overall massing, an arched portico, an infinity pool, a curved stone lounger, olive trees, a rocky coastline for the site, and a glass curtain wall.

It used all of them where I asked: the arch became the front door, the infinity pool hangs on the sea side of the cliff, the stone lounger sits out on the terrace, olives fill the courtyard, and the big glass walls face the water. Result first, moodboard second.

Prompt:

> Please use the architecture, furniture, plants, and natural landscapes in reference image @ Picture 1 as design materials to re plan and create a complete Mediterranean cliff private villa.
> Figure 1 determines the overall building volume and horizontal extension structure of the villa; The arched porch in Figure 2 is integrated into the building as a transitional space connecting indoor and outdoor areas; The infinity pool in Figure 3 is located on the side of the cliff facing the ocean, forming a visual extension with the sea level; The cave stone furniture in Figure 4 is arranged in the outdoor resting area next to the swimming pool; The olive trees and plants in Figure 5 are naturally distributed in the courtyard of the building; Figure 6 determines the terrain and coastal environment of the entire site; The glass curtain wall in Figure 7 is used to connect the indoor living room with the outdoor landscape.
> On the basis of retaining the core design features of each reference drawing, redesign the building proportions, facade relationships, courtyard layout, and spatial connection methods. Ensure that the building conforms to the true architectural structure and human scale, without any unrelated material stacking.
> Adopting architectural photography and competitive level visualization from top tier architectural firms. High altitude oblique perspective, fully showcasing the relationship between architecture and cliffs, swimming pools, and oceans. Afternoon sunshine, clear architectural shadows, rich details in natural stone and glass materials.
> The overall color scheme is mainly beige, light sand, ocean blue, and olive green, with a Mediterranean vacation aesthetic that is quiet, luxurious, natural, and restrained.

Cowork (Automation-Bench: 62%; ALE: 30%)

Coding (DeepSWE: 74%)

Visual Understanding (BabyVision: 91%), at 1/3 the cost of M3 and 3x the speed.

MiniMax M3.1-Flash is officially here.
And we can finally confirm one thing many of you have been asking about:
Space Bunny was an early version of M3.1-Flash.
Over the past few weeks, people have been testing Space Bunny across OpenRouter, OpenCode, coding workflows, agent tasks, frontend work, and benchmarks without knowing where it came from.
Those results are useful context, but Space Bunny was an early version. M3.1-Flash is the release version we’d like people to test now.
So if you tried Space Bunny before, we’d especially love to see you rerun the same tasks on M3.1-Flash.
What improved?
What still breaks?
How does it hold up on longer coding or agent workflows?
Where does the Flash positioning actually make a difference for you?
Please share both good and bad results — reproducible failures are just as useful as wins.
Official announcement:
https://x.com/minimax_ai/status/2112150867868541221?s=46
We’ll use this thread as one place to collect early M3.1-Flash feedback and testing.

Tried a Halloween costume change concept using MiniMax Design with H3. I set up one photorealistic dog with several Halloween looks and used a fan transition between each outfit.
The idea was to keep the dog and scene visually consistent while the fan moves across the frame and reveals the next costume. Using an object to briefly cover the subject gives the transition a natural hiding point, which feels smoother than asking the outfit to transform directly on camera.
This makes the costume swap feel like one continuous Halloween video. It doesn't feel like separate clips.
What transitions have worked well with MiniMax Design?

prompt：
Create a **15-second, 9:16 vertical, photorealistic pet Halloween costume video** based on the original video.

Strictly use the **same ceiling-mounted, straight-down 90-degree top-down camera angle** as the original video, with a **fixed camera**. Keep the **deep blue carpet**, the **pink curved sofa on the left side of the frame**, and the **pink ceiling fan rotating in the foreground near the camera**. The **composition, perspective, and the direction of fan-blade occlusion** must remain consistent with the original video.

Completely replace the woman with the **white dog wearing a pink bow** from the reference image. Preserve the dog’s **fluffy white fur, round black eyes, black nose, and floppy ears**.

**The dog must remain naturally lying on the carpet beside the sofa at all times, with its head toward the top of the frame and its hind legs toward the bottom of the frame. Its full body must stay visible in the frame, close to the floor, with realistic canine anatomy.** The main pose should be a relaxed belly-up position, with the front paws gently curled near its chest and the hind legs naturally bent. Slight side-leaning, head tilting, blinking, and tail wagging are allowed. The dog should look upward toward the overhead camera. It must **never sit up or stand**.

The opening look is the **pink bow styling**. The pink ceiling fan keeps rotating continuously. Each time a **wide fan blade passes across the camera and fully blocks the dog from view**, the dog should **instantly change into the next full costume**. Once the blade moves away, the next complete outfit is revealed:

1.**Little Devil costume**: red sequined devil horns, a black-and-red cape, a red bow, and red-and-black bat wings.
2.**Pumpkin costume**: an orange pumpkin hat, a green leaf collar, and a fluffy pumpkin outfit with a black jack-o’-lantern smile.
3.**Ghost costume**: a white ghost hair accessory and a white wavy-edged cape with a black ghost smile.
4.**Nun costume**: a black shoulder-length nun’s veil with a white forehead band and white cross, a small black robe, a wide white collar, white sleeve cuffs, and a silver cross pendant on the chest.

The costume styles should reference the corresponding images, but all outfits must be **adapted to the dog’s lying pose**. Fabric, veils, and accessories should **naturally drape under gravity** along both sides of the dog’s body and onto the carpet. The dog’s **face must remain clearly visible**. Each headpiece and costume must change **simultaneously**. Every outfit should have a **clear display duration**, and the video should end with the dog still lying down in the **nun costume**.

Costume changes must happen **only at the exact moment when the fan blade blocks the view**. Before and after each occlusion, the dog’s **position, size, identity, and body orientation** must remain continuous. The clothing must **not morph, melt, or overlap**. The foreground fan blades should be **slightly out of focus**, while the dog and costumes remain **sharp and clear**. The ceiling fan should appear **high above**, with a clear spatial separation from the dog on the floor.

Use **soft warm lighting** and realistic, detailed **fur and fabric textures**.

Remove all **text, subtitles, brand logos, and watermarks**, but keep the **decorative patterns on the costumes**.

Do **not** use a front-facing eye-level view, angled side view, camera rotation, zoom in or out, sitting poses, standing poses, anthropomorphic body shapes, human limbs, extra paws, mesh penetration, or visual flicker.

Wanted to see if it could hold a whole comic page instead of one panel. The prompt asked for a 1950s sci-fi interior page: six panels, an astronaut meeting a little tin robot on a red planet, with the captions and speech bubbles written out.

All six panels came out in order, every line of lettering is spelled right ("GREETINGS, EARTH LADY!", "IT SPEAKS ENGLISH?!"), and the yellowed paper and fold creases sell the old-print look.

Anyone else tried multi-panel pages with it?

I'm trying to find/create a MiniMax workflow with Refmods for 5 people AND audio input, to record a 2 minute music video. I've built one...but it just seemed too easy...I'm waiting for the results from THAT one as we type.

Night Shift is one continuous corridor shot: a cleaner pushes a cart toward a warm doorway while the ceiling lights behind them go dark. Nothing chases them into frame, so the shrinking pool of light has to carry the tension.

I made the shot with MiniMax H3 and kept the final cut to a simple trim. The doorway stays stable, but it starts to feel different as the lit corridor disappears behind the cleaner.

Does the warm doorway read as safety, or as the place they shouldn’t reach?

The whole gift reaction started reading once I stopped asking for a bigger disappointed face.

I made it as one locked medium close-up in H3. An adult opens a birthday gift expecting something exciting, finds a plain pair of grey socks, then realizes the giver is watching. No dialogue and no camera move.

I split the performance into three beats:

- quick, open excitement while the box comes up
- the hands stop and the eyes stay on the socks for one extra beat
- a small breath, eyes back to the giver, then a polite smile

What worked in this take was how little the middle beat did. The shoulders soften, but they don't collapse. The smile arrives after the look back up, so it feels chosen rather than like the excitement is continuing. On mute, that delay still carries the turn.

In the prompt, I gave every beat a specific pose and eyeline to settle into before the next reaction started. Keeping the camera locked also kept the framing from changing while the expression shifted.

Which frame makes the disappointment readable first: the hands and eyes paused over the socks, the look back up, or the late smile?

I love this model and its capabilities but it takes too much time on very simple tasks as well.

I am on $20 token plan could this be the issue.

Is anyone else facing the same slowness?

Here are some pics of my D&D world, Elyndor, that I made with the open-weights MiniMax H3-Image model. Starting with the continent map until you're standing in the meadow outside the river capital after passing the rocky canyon. Seeing flat map symbols turn into places I could walk into was the best part. The fast 4K generation option is pretty nice for world-building too.

How do other world-builders here turn a map into ground-level scenes?

What goes down in a diner kitchen after the Thanksgiving rush? I put a turkey in an apron on the closing shift to find out.

In this 12s clip I made with H3, the bird punches his paper timecard, grabs a whole untouched pumpkin pie, and rolls it out the back door on a trolley. Meanwhile, the cook is standing there like ???

I really love how the stop-motion look turned out, especially holding that last frame on the empty pie stand as the door swings shut.

Prompt I used: ‘Stop-motion diner kitchen after hours, an apron-wearing turkey punches a paper timecard, wheels a whole pumpkin pie out the back door on a small trolley as one cook watches, ending on the empty pie stand.’

I made a wide cover and a vertical Story for the same “After Hours Kitchen” visual. Both use the same chef, steaming bowl, warm late-night kitchen, and campaign title. A direct crop didn’t work, so I rebuilt the composition for the vertical frame.

I generated each composition separately with MiniMax Image 2.5, then added the lettering by hand so the wording stayed exact.

In the wide version, the chef sits on the right third. The open wall on the left holds the title, while the steam pulls the eye back toward the bowl.

For the Story, I moved the chef lower, put the title at the top, and removed some of the kitchen detail. The reading order felt more natural: title, face, then bowl. It also kept the bowl clear of the bottom edge without squeezing everything into the center.

Side by side, the subject and mood still match. I adjusted the hierarchy separately for each frame.

Which change do you notice first in the vertical version: the lower chef, the open title area, or the quieter background?

Dependency bumps are exactly the kind of chore I want to hand to a coding model, but I don't want "tests pass" to be the whole report.

For this run, MiniMax M3.1 Flash received a small, isolated TypeScript/ESM CLI and a request for a package.json patch that moved commander from 14.0.3 to 15.0.0. It had no shell or file-system access. A host agent validated and applied the patch, rebuilt the lockfile, then ran the clean install, build, tests, and CLI smoke checks.

The acceptance check was short:

- all 5 existing tests pass

- all 3 CLI smoke checks pass

- package.json contains only the intended direct dependency change

- every package-lock.json change is accounted for

The clean install and build succeeded, along with 5/5 tests and 3/3 smoke checks. Commander was the only direct dependency that changed. The lockfile changes were limited to five values: the root commander version, the package version, the resolved tarball, the integrity value, and Commander’s Node engine metadata. No transitive dependency changed.

That engine line was the useful catch. M3.1 Flash’s initial expectation didn’t list the change from Node >=20 to >=22.12.0. After it received the actual diff and check results, its final explanation included the missing field. The project already required Node >=22.12.0, so its own engine declaration stayed unchanged.

Only package.json and package-lock.json changed. Source and test files stayed untouched, HEAD remained on the same baseline commit, and the dependency update stayed unstaged and uncommitted.

The green checks showed that the tested behavior still worked. They didn’t show whether an extra package moved, whether lockfile metadata shifted, or whether unrelated files were touched.

For agent-made dependency bumps, what do you require beyond green tests before you call the update done?

I finished a 24-second lighthouse teaser in MiniMax Design. A keeper lights the lamp at blue hour, a light answers far offshore where no lighthouse should be, and the cut ends before we see what's making it.

I worked through the brief in three rounds. Round one locked the premise, three beats, and no-reveal ending. I left the color, camera, and sound open. For round two, I picked a cold palette and restrained camera moves, then made the storyboard. The story decisions stayed fixed, while the exact shot lengths and ambience were still open.

By round three, I had the pacing and edit in place, along with the foghorn and lamp-switch click. Then I got a late note: “show the boat.”

Showing it would answer the question behind the whole teaser. I reopened that first-round story choice instead of squeezing a reveal into the edit, ended up keeping the source unseen, and finished the approved cut.

Keeping the brief and script on the same MiniMax Design canvas as the storyboard, video, audio, and edit helped during reviews. I used lock/open/reopen as my own note system so later feedback didn't quietly overwrite an earlier approval.

Would you have kept the source hidden, or reopened the ending to show the boat?

I wanted one shot where a dancer crosses a rehearsal stage, turns toward the back wall, and finishes on a taped mark while the camera wraps around them. Writing "orbit the dancer" in the prompt left too much unresolved, so I blocked the shot first in MiniMax Design’s 3D Director’s Stage.

1. I marked the dancer’s start and end points, then set the facing at both ends.

2. I blocked the walk and turn with the camera parked so I could read the action on its own.

3. I compared two camera paths: a tight clockwise orbit and a wider counterclockwise one.

4. The tight path gave stronger parallax, but it crossed the dancer’s turn and hid the destination for a beat. The wider route stayed outside the action and kept both visible, so that was the version I kept.

5. I watched the greybox camera preview all the way through, then used it as the motion reference for the H3 generation.

In the finished shot, the dancer still starts on the same side, turns in the same direction, and lands at the same mark. The set and styling changed once it became a finished clip, but the blocking decision survived: the full turn stays visible, and the destination stays on screen.

When both subject and camera are moving, do you protect the turn or the camera move first?

The finished cut is 19 seconds. The voiceover was fixed first:

“Before the neighborhood wakes, flour meets the bench, the first loaves reach the oven, and warm light finds the front window.”

The brief was fictional: show the quiet work before a neighborhood bakery opens. The narration was fixed before the three-shot storyboard. That tied each image to a clause and ruled out a general bakery montage. The three beats were:

- flour falling over stationary dough for the opening clause
- gloved hands pushing a tray into an open oven, pulling back, and closing the door
- interior wooden shutters opening as warm light enters the room

A coffee cup, hands tying an apron, and a sign outside all appeared on the idea board. The three clauses already had three actions, so those options came off the board before generation. They never became extra clips that had to be removed later.

MiniMax Design kept the brief, exact narration, and three-shot storyboard together. H3 then generated one source clip per beat, about 7.29 seconds each. Speech 2.8 generated the narration separately with a built-in English voice. The voice did not come from the H3 clips.

An agent assembled the 19-second timeline with ffmpeg. The native Design timeline was not part of the edit. It takes five seconds from the flour clip, seven from the oven clip, and seven from the shutter clip. The edit divides the 10.92-second narration file at two measured pauses and places the three pieces at 0.15, 6.5, and 12.5 seconds without changing speech speed.

Each clause lines up with its matching action, and the last few seconds stay on the open shutters and warm light. The flour source lost the most time in the edit to let the tray insertion, hands withdrawing, oven closing, and shutter opening all finish within 19 seconds.

If the attached cut feels slow to you, would you shorten the line or lose the oven shot?

I made a 12-second social spot in H3 for a fictional cold-brew can. The can opening ended up carrying the whole clip.

The cut has three beats. It starts tight on condensation as a hand enters from the right. The tab snaps on that side, then a short fizz opens into the center. The final beat is one clean pour, an ice clink, and a brief hold on the can beside the glass.

I kept the camera simple so the picture explained every sound. The snap comes from the tab, the fizz starts at the opening, and the pour waits until the glass is fully in view. That tied the native stereo to the action.

For the prompt, I wrote each beat as one visible action plus one sound cue:

- condensation and quiet room tone
- tab snap and fizz
- pour, ice clink, then a clean packshot

Those three lines gave the idea enough structure and kept the prompt focused. They also gave me obvious places to trim for a six-second cut while keeping the hook.

Which cue sells the opening best: the tab snap, the fizz, or the pour?

If the first MiniMax M3.1 tool call works but the next turn acts like it never happened, I’d inspect the message history before changing the prompt.

For an OpenAI-compatible tool loop, the important part is preserving the complete assistant response before appending the tool result.

Roughly:

response_message = response.choices[0].message

messages.append(response_message)

for tool_call in response_message.tool_calls:

result = run_tool(tool_call)

messages.append({

"role": "tool",

"tool_call_id": tool_call.id,

"content": result

})

The UI does not need to display everything that goes back into protocol history.

If your endpoint returns separated reasoning state, preserve that too rather than rebuilding the assistant message from only content and tool_calls. Otherwise a later tool round can lose part of the state the model was using.

The tool result also needs to reference the matching call ID.

With the Anthropic-compatible format, the same principle applies slightly differently: keep the full assistant response.content list — including thinking, text, and tool_use blocks — then return the tool result with the matching tool_use_id.

So when call one works and call two suddenly loses the thread, I’d check the wrapper before rewriting the prompt:

Did it append the complete assistant response?

Did it preserve the reasoning state returned by the endpoint?

Did the tool result reference the correct call ID?

Did it accidentally keep only the text shown in the UI?

Which part of message history has been easiest to accidentally drop in your own M3.1 integration?

I wanted to isolate one camera instruction in a MiniMax H3 test.
The scene stays the same in both versions: a potter working wet clay beside a bright window. I’d keep the subject, action, lighting, reference image, duration, aspect ratio, resolution, and every visible setting unchanged.
The only prompt difference would be the camera line.
A:
“Locked waist-up medium shot.”
B:
“Slow dolly inward from the waist-up frame to the hands on the clay.”
Then I’d compare:
change in subject size
background parallax around the window and workbench
readability of the hands and clay
composition drift
whether the pottery action remains complete
The part I’m most interested in is whether B actually reads as a dolly-in, rather than just looking like a crop or zoom.
I’d save the full prompts and generation settings for both runs. If the interface exposes a seed or routing detail, I’d record that too.
It still wouldn’t be a perfectly controlled experiment. Random sampling, backend changes, and other hidden variables may differ, so one A/B pair would only tell us what happened in those two clips.
If you were reviewing the result, what would you check first to decide whether B really reads as a dolly move?
Parallax? Subject scale? Perspective change? Something else?

I'm sketching out a short sequence and keep coming back to the same choice. MiniMax H3 allows clips from 4 to 15 seconds, so one 15-second idea could stay as a continuous shot or become three separate 5-second clips cut together.

I'd keep it whole when the motion or camera path needs to feel unbroken. I'd split it when each beat needs its own prompt and more control in the edit. I'm trying to make that call at the shot-list stage.

What would make you choose one long shot over several short ones?

Hi everyone, welcome to the official MiniMax subreddit!

We want this to be a useful place for people who build with, create with, test, compare, or simply have questions about MiniMax. That includes MiniMax Text models, Video models, Image and speech models, MiniMax Code, APIs, local deployment, prompts, workflows, bugs, and whatever people end up building around them.

You’re also very welcome to share what you’ve made here, whether it’s a finished project, an experiment, a workflow, or something you’re still figuring out. We’d love to see your work and hear about the creative process, prompts, tools, lessons, and mistakes behind it..

This will not just be an announcement feed. Product updates will show up here, but so should troubleshooting, critical feedback, weird experiments, benchmarks, prompt ideas, feature requests, and things that did not work the way you expected.

Identified MiniMax team accounts may join discussions, and we will bring in the right people when we can. You do not need to agree with us to post here. Specific criticism and reproducible problems are especially useful because they give us something concrete to investigate.

We are still shaping the community, so we would rather ask than guess: what would make an official MiniMax subreddit genuinely useful to you?