CASE STUDY · MY PRODUCT · AI SAAS

PromptMotion

Turns a creator's rough idea into production-ready prompts for AI video models — powered by a multi-agent engine I designed, built, launched in 5 months and grew to 1,500+ users in its first 2 months.

Visit promptmotion.cc ↗
Multi-agent AI
RAG
Generative video
SaaS
MY ROLE
Founder · engine architect
USERS
1,500+ in 2 months
MODEL
Free tier + paid plans
STATUS
Live in production

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

30-second read

PROBLEM
Creators waste paid AI video credits on prompts the models don’t understand.
WHAT I BUILT
A self-checking AI product that turns a rough idea into ready-to-use prompts for 5 video models.
RESULT
1,500+ users in 2 months
TIME
Built and launched in 5 months
BUSINESS IMPACT
Near-zero ad spend. ~90% of running cost is AI usage — optimised for margin.

THE PROBLEM

Creators know the video they want. They don't speak the language AI video models need.

Prompt craft

Camera, lighting and motion terms most creators don't know.

Consistency

Characters and places drift between clips.

Every model differs

Veo, Kling and Runway each want prompts written differently.

Wasted credits

Every bad prompt costs a paid generation.

THE PRODUCT

From idea to a shootable plan.

[Screenshot: result page — pipeline rail with Cast & Shots]
Cast & Shots pipeline

A two-stage result page: lock the characters first, then generate each shot, with a guided dock showing what to do next.

[Screenshot: Send to Director]
Send to Director

The AI plans camera, lighting, movement and composition before it writes the final prompt — the way a real director would.

[Screenshot: model selector & output]
One idea, five models

The same plan is written natively for Veo 3.1, Kling, Runway, MiniMax and Seedance.

[Video: a finished clip made with PromptMotion]
Real output

Finished videos made by creators using PromptMotion prompts.

HOW THE ENGINE EVOLVED

From one LLM call to a team of agents.

Each step was driven by a real limitation users hit — not by chasing frameworks.

  1. V1

    Single LLM

    One big prompt. Fast to ship, but shallow and inconsistent.

  2. V2

    Multi-agent

    Split into specialist agents, each with one job.

  3. V3

    RAG knowledge

    A cinematography knowledge base agents retrieve from.

  4. V4

    Agents & critics

    Shared continuity ledger and a critic loop that sends work back.

  5. V5

    Caching

    Caching infrastructure to bring the cost per run down.

Under the hood: the Script Architect

Watch it run live ↓

AGENT 1

Concept Analyst

Finds the emotional core

AGENT 2

Story Architect

Builds the arc and cast

AGENT 3

Scene Writer

Designs each shot

AGENT 4

Continuity Checker

Checks against the ledger

AGENT 5

Output Formatter

Writes per-model prompts

Continuity Ledger

Append-only state shared across every clip, so cast and places never drift.

Cinematography knowledge base

Retrievable technique-to-emotion mappings, instead of stuffing them into prompts.

Critic loop

Drafts are reviewed and sent back with specific feedback until they pass.

Built with LangChain and LangGraph.

WATCH IT RUN

5–10 agents that plan, debate, check and critique each other.

A full run on a real brief — every handoff, knowledge-base lookup, question and critique, as it happens.

brief: “a lonely robot finds a flower in a ruined city”

handoff · 1/25

1

MESSAGES

0

KB LOOKUPS

0

MEMORY OPS

0

CRITIQUES

0

REVISIONS

AGENT DISCUSSION

phase: ideation

  1. Director→ Concept AnalystHANDOFF
    New brief: “a lonely robot finds a flower in a ruined city.” Find the emotional core.

Handoff

RAG retrieval

Shared memory

Discussion

Critique

Revision

Approval & delivery

THE KEY LESSON

Consistent isn't the same as good.

The engine became reliable — characters stayed on-model, shots stayed coherent. But it was optimised for consistency, not for “wow”. So I redesigned the loop to reward ideas that surprise.

  1. 01

    Vision Card

    A “taste DNA” artifact every agent works from.

  2. 02

    Idea gate

    Several premises, scored for how divergent they are.

  3. 03

    Divergence engine

    Director-lens seeds push ideas in different creative directions.

  4. 04

    Two critics

    One judges correctness, the other ranks for taste.

ENGINEERING CHALLENGES

The hard parts.

01

Cost of many agents

More agents means more LLM calls. A caching layer brings the cost per run down.

02

Continuity across clips

Generated clips are independent; the ledger is what keeps them one story.

03

Moving model targets

New video models keep launching, each with its own prompt dialect.

04

Measuring “good”

Correctness is checkable. Taste needed its own critic and scoring.

RUNNING IT AS A BUSINESS

Engineering is half of it.

I own the product end to end — pricing, acquisition, activation and teaching users to succeed.

Pricing

Free tier plus paid subscriptions, priced in LKR for the home market.

Acquisition

Organic search did most of the work, plus a small Meta budget and localised ad creatives — no Google Ads.

Measurement

Meta Pixel + Conversions API with deduplication, and a custom “first prompt” activation event.

Education

Creator Academy community with recorded tutorials, including Sinhala workflows.

Results

1,500+

Users in the first 2 months

5

Video models supported

5 mo

From idea to launch

5–10

Specialist agents per run, depending on the brief

My role

  • Founder — product, pricing and go-to-market
  • Designed and built the multi-agent engine
  • RAG knowledge base and caching layer
  • Product UX, analytics and ads infrastructure

Technology

LangChain
LangGraph
RAG
Next.js
TypeScript
Tailwind
shadcn/ui
Supabase
Meta Conversions API