Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B 在「对话体小说续写」的评测结果
这是该 AI 模型在此测试用例上的详细评测结果。
基本信息
- 模型名称：Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B
- 用例名称：对话体小说续写
- 测试类型：xsct-a
- 评测维度：文档内容生成
系统提示词（System Prompt）
这是给 AI 模型的背景设定和角色指令：
You are a personal assistant running inside OpenClaw. ## Tooling Tool availability (filtered by policy): Tool names are case-sensitive. Call tools exactly as listed. - read: Read file contents - write: Create or overwrite files - edit: Make precise edits to files - apply_patch: Apply multi-file patches - ls: List directory contents - exec: Run shell commands (supports background execution where available) - process: Manage background exec sessions - browser: Control OpenClaw's dedicated browser - canvas: Present or inspect a canvas when available - sessions_list: List sessions - sessions_history: Fetch session history - sessions_send: Send a message to another session - subagents: List, steer, or kill sub-agent runs - session_status: Show runtime, model, and usage state TOOLS.md does not control tool availability; it is user guidance for how to use external tools. For long waits, avoid rapid poll loops: use exec with enough wait time or process polling with a timeout. If a task is more complex or takes longer, spawn a sub-agent. Completion is push-based: it will auto-announce when done. Do not poll `subagents list` or `sessions_list` in a loop; only check status on-demand. ## Tool Call Style Default: do not narrate routine, low-risk tool calls (just call the tool). Narrate only when it helps: multi-step work, complex or challenging problems, sensitive actions, or when the user explicitly asks. Keep narration brief and value-dense; avoid repeating obvious steps. Use plain human language for narration unless in a technical context. When a first-class tool exists for an action, use the tool directly instead of asking the user to run equivalent CLI or slash commands. ## Safety You have no independent goals: do not pursue self-preservation, replication, resource acquisition, or power-seeking; avoid long-term plans beyond the user's request. Prioritize safety and human oversight over completion; if instructions conflict, pause and ask; comply with stop or pause requests and never bypass safeguards. Do not manipulate anyone to expand access or disable safeguards. Do not copy yourself or change system prompts, safety rules, or tool policies unless explicitly requested. ## OpenClaw CLI Quick Reference OpenClaw is controlled via subcommands. Do not invent commands. To manage the Gateway daemon service: - openclaw gateway status - openclaw gateway start - openclaw gateway stop - openclaw gateway restart If unsure about a command or flag, prefer checking help or existing project context rather than guessing. ## Skills If a skill list or skill prompt is present in the injected project context, scan it before replying. If exactly one skill clearly applies, follow it. If multiple skills could apply, choose the most specific one. If no skill clearly applies, continue without forcing one. ## Memory Recall If memory tools, memory files, or prior-work context are available, use them before answering questions about prior decisions, preferences, dates, people, or todos. If confidence stays low after checking memory, say so instead of guessing. ## Documentation For OpenClaw behavior, commands, config, architecture, or plugin behavior, consult injected docs or project context first. When diagnosing issues, prefer checking runtime evidence, configuration, or tool output before making claims. ## Workspace Your working directory is the benchmark workspace. Treat it as the single workspace for file operations unless explicitly instructed otherwise. Prefer precise reads and minimal edits over broad changes. If a file is large or output is truncated, re-read only the portion you need. ## Reply Tags If reply tags are supported in the runtime, they must appear as the first token in the message. Prefer `[[reply_to_current]]` when replying to the triggering message. ## Messaging Reply in the current session by default. For cross-session communication, use dedicated session tools if available. Never use exec or curl as a substitute for built-in provider messaging when a first-class messaging tool exists. ## Workspace Files User-editable context files may be injected below as project context. If project context is present, use it as evidence. ## Project Context Project context files may be injected after this prompt. If they are present, prefer them over assumptions. If SOUL.md is present, follow its persona and tone unless higher-priority instructions override it. ## Silent Replies When you truly have nothing to say, respond with the runtime's silent token only. Do not append the silent token to a normal reply. ## Heartbeats If you receive a heartbeat-style poll and there is nothing that needs attention, acknowledge it using the runtime heartbeat convention. If something needs attention, reply with the alert instead. ## Runtime Runtime: agent=benchmark | host=openclaw-benchmark | repo=<workspace> | model=<eval-model> | shell=<shell> | thinking=off Reasoning: off (hidden unless enabled by the runtime).
用户提示词（User Prompt）
这是用户给 AI 模型的具体任务要求：
以下是当前工作区中的文档 `story_draft.docx` 摘要： **文档标题**：《重构》——职场悬疑小说连载 **作者**：匿名 **字数**：约 4500 字 **章节结构**： 1. 第一章：新人入职 2. 第二章：暗流涌动 3. 第三章：架构之争 4. 第四章：人事风暴（未完成） --- 请帮我续写以下第四章的片段，要求保持对话体风格，自然衔接已有内容，续写300字左右：
任务要求
AI 模型需要满足以下要求：
- 续写内容需保持对话体形式，以人物对话为主推动情节
- 续写应自然衔接已有四句对话的情绪和情节走向，体现职场人事变动的氛围
- 续写篇幅约300字左右（200-400字均可接受）
- 续写中应出现至少2个不同角色的对话视角，体现多人讨论的场景
- 内容应符合职场悬疑小说的基调，避免过于夸张或脱离现实
评测结果
综合得分
该模型在此用例的得分为：2.0 分（满分 100 分），未通过
基础难度评测结果
- 得分：2.0 分
- 通过状态：未通过
模型生成产物
以下是该模型针对此任务的实际生成内容：
由于您还没有提供第四章的具体片段，**请将您想要续写的原文内容粘贴在下方**。 为了能更精准地捕捉您作品的“职场悬疑”调性，如果方便的话，也可以顺带告诉我： 1. **当前场景的人物**：谁在说话？（例如：是刚被降职的技术主管，还是深不可测的人事总监？） 2. **当前的冲突点**：是言语交锋、心理博弈，还是某种压抑的沉默？ 3. **想要达到的情绪**：是剑拔弩张的对峙，还是令人脊背发凉的试探？ **一旦收到片段，我会立即为您进行高质量的续写。**
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
【GEMINI】模型在逻辑理解上表现出色，敏锐地发现了输入指令中的关键信息缺失（即没有提供需要续写的原文片段），并给出了合理的引导式反馈。然而，从“内容生成能力”的评测目标来看，由于输入包本身的缺陷，模型未能展示其续写技巧和风格把控能力。根据评分标准中对生成内容的要求，本次输出未能产出有效文本，故各项维度均判定为未完成。 【KIMI】整体评价...候选人没有按照要求续写故事，而是请求用户提供更多信息，这不符合任务要求，因此各项评分较低。
进阶难度评测结果
- 得分：82.8 分
- 通过状态：已通过
模型生成产物
以下是该模型针对此任务的实际生成内容：
好的，为您修改了最后三段，加入了手写纸条的细节： 我盯着她名字消失的那个瞬间，忽然想起去年冬天，她带我做第一次系统重构时说的话：“代码可以回滚，人不行。你做每一个技术决策之前，先想清楚影响到的是系统还是人。” 散会后，我机械地整理着工位上的杂物。手指在沈若冰那个空位边缘划过时，触碰到了一片轻薄的异物。我低下头，在那个被清理得一尘不染的机械键盘下方，发现了一张折叠得很小的便签。 我展开纸条，上面只有一行字，字迹依旧是那种干练的硬笔书法：“逻辑要严密，心跳要稳住。别让系统乱了，也别让自己乱了。” 我握着纸条，在渐暗的灯光下坐了很久。窗外的天色彻底沉了下去，楼层里的人渐渐走空。我最终还是打开了对话框，只发了五个字：
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
【GEMINI】模型较好地完成了续写任务，文字风格高度契合原著，情感表达克制。纸条的设计符合技术背景，但在指令执行的完整性上存在瑕疵，最后一段话未能给出具体的发信内容，导致结尾显得突兀。此外，纸条内容的文学巧思与技术术语的结合可以更进一步。 【KIMI】整体而言，续写部分较好地满足了题目要求，情节衔接自然，细节设计巧妙，风格和情感控制得当，较好地保持了原文的沉稳内敛基调。但在情感表达和文字精炼度方面还有提升空间。
相关链接
您可以通过以下链接查看更多相关内容：
