Custom AgentNo income, sales or time cost is disclosed in the source; only page and word counts are mentioned.Public · Free

Write long-form by fractal iteration: you own structure and voice, the agent writes one block at a time

r/ManusOfficial 发帖者（原帖不可读，未取得用户名）Reddit · Date not disclosed

Read original

Saved text / editorial summary

采集站 agentusecases.ai 的编辑摘要（原帖 Reddit 线程在本次采集时不可读，以下为转述而非引文）：发帖人自称自学出身，把 Manus 与 Gemini 2.5 Pro 的 Deep Research 搭配使用，并采用一套自称为 fractal iteration 的提示方法，包含层级分解、风格指南、规划结构以及 md 与 PDF 模块。他用这套做法生成并组装长篇作品：一本三百多页的非虚构书、一个 255 页的 AI 伦理项目（章节在生成之后组装）、以及一百篇短篇故事的合集。他称自己主导方法并保留了大量笔记，后续生成的段落仍能保持风格与语气一致；在评论中他把结果定位为「长输出连贯性强」，而不是能掩盖 AI 写作痕迹。原帖未给出任何收益或时间成本数据。

Business model

A self-taught creator posted on Reddit that they paired Manus with Gemini Deep Research and used a prompting method they call fractal iteration - hierarchical decomposition, a style guide, planned structure, and md or PDF modules - to produce long-form work: a 300-plus page nonfiction book, a 255-page AI ethics project with chapters assembled after generation, and a collection of 100 short stories. They stress that they directed the methodology and kept extensive notes, that later-generated sections still matched style and voice, and in comments they frame the strength as coherent long output rather than hiding AI tells. No income, sales or time cost is disclosed. What transfers is the division of labour: structure, voice and fact-checking stay with the person, drafting and assembly go to the agent, and the final read-through returns to the person.

The two ways long-form fails are drift and inconsistency, and both are structural. Fixing the tree and the style guide up front means the agent only has to write inside a fixed boundary, which is why 300 pages does not fall apart as context grows.

Workflow

Produce a structure tree first - part, chapter, section - with the one question each section answers and a word range.
Write a short style guide: person, sentence length, banned words, required phrasing and a 200-word sample paragraph.
Use the research step to produce sourced fact cards per section; anything without a source goes to a needs-checking list.
Generate one module at a time, passing in its structural position, word range, style guide and fact cards, and write it to disk immediately.
Run a consistency check at the end of each module: person, banned words, new arguments outside the structure tree, word count.
Store each module as a numbered plain-text file so reordering and replacement cost almost nothing.
After assembly, read the whole thing end to end and fix only three things: repetition, breaks in flow, and voice shifts.
Do one separate fact-checking pass over every number, name, date and quotation.

Adaptation plan

The post reports page and word counts but no sales, no fees, no hours, no tool cost and no failure cases, and the specific prompting method is described only in general terms. The original post could not be read at collection time (Reddit returned HTTP 403 on every public endpoint). The workflow, prompt and pitfalls here are AgentFlow's proposals, untested.

Prompt

AgentFlow starter draft: not tested in the original business setting; results are not guaranteed. Synthetic examples do not verify the author’s revenue.

You are a long-form writing assistant. Write one module inside the boundaries I give you. I supply structure, voice and facts; you do not change the structure, the voice or the facts.

[INPUT]
Full structure tree: [paste]
This module's position: [for example Part 2, Chapter 3, Section 1]
The question this section answers: [one sentence]
Word range: [for example 1200 to 1600 words]
Style guide: [person, sentence length, banned words, required phrasing, 200-word sample paragraph]
Fact cards: [usable facts with sources, listed one per line]
End of previous section: [paste the last paragraph]

[EXECUTION STEPS]
1) First state in three sentences what you understand this section to be and where it sits in the tree, and wait for my confirmation.
2) Then write only this module. Open by picking up the previous section's ending; do not recap the whole book.
3) Use only facts from the fact cards. Anything not on a card must not be written; collect it into a needs-more-research list instead.
4) Self-check immediately after drafting: is the person consistent, did any banned word appear, did you introduce an argument outside the tree, is the word count in range.
5) Deliver the text with the self-check, having already revised anything the check flagged.

[OUTPUT]
- Body text as plain text with a section heading.
- Self-check table of five to seven rows, pass or fail each, with how you revised any failure.
- Needs-more-research list, one item per gap with why it is needed.
- A one-line handoff suggestion for the next section.

[HUMAN CONFIRMATION]
- Your understanding of the section must be approved before you write.
- Do not modify the structure tree, reorder chapters or change the word range.
- No facts from outside the fact cards may enter the body text.

[SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE - not real data, format only]
Input: Part 2, Chapter 3, Section 1; question is why small teams stall more often; 1200 to 1600 words; second person, short sentences, banned words include empowerment and closed loop; three sourced findings on the fact cards.
Output (extract):
Opening: the previous section ended on cards aging quietly on the board; this section asks why they age - 
Self-check: second person consistent, pass; no banned words, pass; no new argument outside the tree, pass; 1420 words, inside range, pass; continuity with the previous section, pass.
Needs more research: 1) the fact cards never define small team size, so the text avoided a headcount and needs one sourced figure.
Handoff: next section can open on the idea that if stalling is normal, noticing early matters more than fixing fast.

Running costs and pitfalls

Download offline bundles