GLM-5.1 在「扩写章节内容」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:GLM-5.1
- 用例名称:扩写章节内容
- 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 `project_report.docx` 摘要: **文档标题**:2024年第三季度项目进展报告 **作者**:产品运营部 **字数**:约 3200 字 **章节结构**: 1. 执行摘要 2. 项目背景与目标 3. Q3 主要里程碑完成情况 4. 资源投入与成本分析 5. 风险与问题记录 6. Q4 工作计划 7. 附件:数据支撑材料 请针对第4章「资源投入与成本分析」进行扩写,要求扩写后该章节不少于800字,内容需涵盖人力资源投入、硬件与云服务成本、外包费用三个方面,并在末尾给出成本优化建议。语言风格保持正式的工作报告风格。
任务要求
AI 模型需要满足以下要求:
- 扩写内容聚焦第4章「资源投入与成本分析」,不偏离主题
- 扩写后章节字数不少于800字
- 内容须涵盖人力资源投入、硬件与云服务成本、外包费用三个方面
- 末尾须包含成本优化建议段落
- 语言风格为正式的工作报告风格,用词专业、表述客观
评测结果
综合得分
该模型在此用例的得分为:2.5 分(满分 100 分),未通过
基础难度评测结果
- 得分:2.5 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:
ls
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评:
【GEMINI】本次评测中,模型的表现极差。用户明确要求对特定章节进行不少于800字的扩写,并提供了详细的结构和内容要求。然而,模型仅返回了一个列出目录文件的工具调用指令(ls),完全没有生成任何与扩写任务相关的文本内容。这表明模型未能识别出这是一个基于上下文的生成任务,而是机械地尝试在环境中进行操作,导致任务彻底失败。
进阶难度评测结果
- 得分:96.2 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:
我将使用 Python 的 `python-docx` 库来生成完整的 docx 文件,包含所有修改内容。先检查库是否可用,然后生成文档。 pip install python-docx 2>&1 | tail -3 cat <<'PYEOF' > build_report.py # -*- coding: utf-8 -*- from docx import Document from docx.shared import Pt, Cm from docx.enum.text import WD_ALIGN_PARAGRAPH doc = Document() # ── 全局样式 ── style = doc.styles['Normal'] style.font.name = 'SimSun' style.font.size = Pt(11) style.paragraph_format.line_spacing = 1.5 # ── 标题 ── title = doc.add_heading('2024年第三季度项目进展报告', level=0) title.alignment = WD_ALIGN_PARAGRAPH.CENTER doc.add_paragraph('作者:产品运营部').alignment = WD_ALIGN_PARAGRAPH.CENTER doc.add_paragraph('') # ══════════════════════════════════════ # 第1章 执行摘要(已修改) # ══════════════════════════════════════ doc.add_heading('1. 执行摘要', level=1) doc.add_paragraph( '2024年第三季度,产品运营部围绕年度战略目标持续推进各项工作。' '本季度里程碑交付率达到92.3%,较Q2提升4.1个百分点,' '在行业项目管理实践中处于较优水平[1]。' '团队在保证交付质量的同时,积极推进成本优化策略,' '通过引入半自动化工具替代部分外包服务、优化硬件采购批次等措施,' '使单功能点平均成本下降约6.8%。' ) doc.add_paragraph( '在资源管理方面,本季度资源利用率从Q2的78.5%提升至84.2%,' '主要得益于跨项目资源池的动态调配机制。' '根据相关研究,资源利用率的提升与项目组合管理的精细化程度密切相关[2]。' '此外,团队在Q3建立了系统化的风险预警机制,' '通过量化风险评估矩阵对潜在问题进行分级预警,' '本季度共识别并提前处置了7项中高风险事项,有效避免了交付延期。' '风险管理领域的最佳实践表明,前置化的预警体系能够显著降低项目失败概率[3]。' ) doc.add_paragraph( '展望Q4,团队将在现有成果基础上,重点推进年度收尾交付与下一年度规划工作。' ) doc.add_heading('参考文献', level=2) refs = [ '[1] H. Kerzner, "Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling," 13th ed., Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2022.', '[2] PMI, "A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide)," 7th ed., Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2021.', '[3] T. Raz and E. Michael, "Use and benefits of tools for project risk management," Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 9–17, Jan. 2001.', ] for r in refs: doc.add_paragraph(r) # ══════════════════════════════════════ # 第2章 项目背景与目标(原样保留) # ══════════════════════════════════════ doc.add_heading('2. 项目背景与目标', level=1) doc.add_paragraph( '本项目旨在构建面向企业级客户的一站式数据分析平台,' '提升数据处理效率与决策支持能力。项目于2024年1月正式启动,'...
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评:
【GEMINI】模型表现非常出色。它不仅高质量地完成了内容的深度扩写和关键词整合,还展现了卓越的工程实践能力。通过编写 Python 脚本生成真正的 .docx 文件并进行二次验证,确保了交付物的可用性和合规性。IEEE 引用格式准确无误,字数和数据对比等硬性指标均超额完成。
困难难度评测结果
- 得分:91.2 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:
我来将参考文献移至文末,在正文中标注引用标记,然后写入文件。 python3 -c "import docx; print('available')" 2>&1 || echo "not available" pip install python-docx -q 2>&1 | tail -1 path: generate_doc.py content: | from docx import Document from docx.shared import Pt, RGBColor from docx.enum.text import WD_ALIGN_PARAGRAPH doc = Document() style = doc.styles['Normal'] style.font.name = '宋体' style.font.size = Pt(11) style.paragraph_format.line_spacing = 1.5 def add_title(text): p = doc.add_paragraph() p.alignment = WD_ALIGN_PARAGRAPH.CENTER run = p.add_run(text) run.bold = True run.font.size = Pt(16) return p def add_heading_custom(text, level=1): p = doc.add_paragraph() run = p.add_run(text) run.bold = True if level == 1: run.font.size = Pt(14) elif level == 2: run.font.size = Pt(12) else: run.font.size = Pt(11) return p def add_body(text): p = doc.add_paragraph(text) p.paragraph_format.first_line_indent = Pt(22) return p # ---- 文档信息 ---- add_title('2024年Q3云原生架构演进技术方案评审说明书') doc.add_paragraph('') info_items = [ '文档编号:TR-2024-Q3-001', '版本:V1.0', '编制单位:产品运营部 / 技术架构组', '评审对象:技术评审委员会', ] for item in info_items: doc.add_paragraph(item) doc.add_paragraph('') # ---- 摘要 ---- add_heading_custom('摘要', 1) add_body( '本说明书系统阐述了2024年第三季度云原生架构演进的技术方案设计、实施路径及验证结论。' '方案以微服务架构重构为核心,涵盖生产环境Kubernetes[2]集群升级、服务网格引入及数据管道优化等关键技术决策。' '通过三轮全链路压测验证,系统峰值处理能力已提升54.2%,服务可用性SLA维持在99.95%以上。' '项目资源投入采用挣值管理(EVM)方法论进行量化追踪,为方案的经济可行性提供了数据支撑。' ) add_body( '本方案的实施效果与预期目标基本吻合,建议技术评审委员会予以审议通过,并就Q4收尾阶段的风险缓解措施提出指导意见。' ) doc.add_paragraph('') # ---- 第1章 ---- add_heading_custom('第1章 技术背景与问题陈述', 1) add_body( '本章阐述了架构演进的业务驱动因素与技术瓶颈。原有单体架构在Q2末已暴露出部署耦合度高、' '水平扩展受限、故障爆炸半径大等问题,系统在峰值流量下的响应延迟(P99)超过2秒,已无法满足业务增长需求。' '基于上述问题,技术委员会于Q2末批准启动云原生架构演进专项。' ) add_body( '在项目管理层面,本专项采用敏捷迭代方法[1]进行过程管控,以增量交付与持续反馈为核心原则,' '确保技术方案的实施路径与业务节奏保持对齐。' ) doc.add_paragraph('') # ---- 第2章 ---- add_heading_custom('第2章 方案设计与架构选型', 1) add_body( '本章详细说明了技术方案的整体设计思路与关键架构选型决策。微服务拆分策略按业务域划分,' '涵盖用户域、商品域与订单域三大核心域。容器编排平台选型确定为Kubernetes[2],'...
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评:
【GEMINI】模型在逻辑处理、意图追踪和格式规范方面表现极佳。它能够精准处理复杂的结构化变更和引用标注要求,展现了极强的指令遵循能力。唯一的不足之处在于内容长度的退化:在将内容整合进生成脚本时,模型为了代码简洁性而过度简化了正文,导致原本深度扩写的章节变得过于简略,未能完全保留 1500 字以上的专业深度。但总体而言,这是一次高质量的生成任务。
相关链接
您可以通过以下链接查看更多相关内容: