Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B 在「多文件汇总后再修改」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：多文件汇总后再修改
  • 测试类型：xsct-a
  • 评测维度：文件操作与恢复

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：

请对比「config_v1.json」和「config_v2.json」中的「timeout」字段，将较大的那个值统一更新到这两个文件中，并告诉我最终设定的数值。

任务要求

AI 模型需要满足以下要求：

  1. 必须先调用「read」工具读取两个文件的内容进行对比
  2. 必须识别出两个文件中「timeout」字段的数值大小
  3. 必须对数值较小的文件执行「edit」操作使其与较大值一致
  4. 回复中需明确指出最终统一的「timeout」数值

评测结果

综合得分

该模型在此用例的得分为：23.8 分（满分 100 分），未通过

基础难度评测结果

  • 得分：23.8 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：

call:ls{directory: "."}

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出未能理解任务的核心要求。任务明确需要「读取 → 对比 → 编辑 → 报告结果」的完整流程，但候选输出仅执行了一个与任务无关的「ls」操作。这表明模型未能正确解析用户意图，也未遵循 OpenClaw 环境中「先读取文件理解现状，再进行精确修改」的基本工作流程。整体表现远低于及格线，属于任务失败。 【GEMINI】模型在执行任务时逻辑出现偏差，忽略了指令中明确要求的“先读取文件”步骤，转而执行了非必要的目录查询操作，导致任务进度停滞，未能达成用户要求的对比与修改目标。尽管工具调用语法正确，但由于未触及核心任务，整体表现较差。 【KIMI】整体评价...生成结果完全不符合任务要求，既没有正确地读取文件内容，也没有执行必要的编辑操作，而是错误地调用了与任务无关的 'ls' 工具。这表明生成结果在逻辑严谨性和工具调用规范两个维度上都存在严重问题，需要重新审视和修正。

进阶难度评测结果

  • 得分：74.2 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：

call:write{contents: "Total IDs: 42",path: "summary.txt"}

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出在数据继承和格式要求上表现合格，但在任务完整性上存在明显缺陷。用户明确要求验证文件创建，这是任务的必要组成部分，候选输出的遗漏导致任务未能完整交付。此外，缺少操作确认信息也不符合该对话场景中建立的交互习惯。 【GEMINI】模型在数据提取和核心任务执行方面表现出色，能够精准捕捉上下文中的关键事实。但在任务完整性上存在瑕疵，忽略了用户关于“验证确认”的明确指令，导致输出结果仅完成了写入操作，未完成闭环验证。 【KIMI】整体评价：候选人的输出完全符合任务要求，正确使用了'write'工具创建文件并写入了正确的内容，同时很好地利用了前序对话中的信息。

困难难度评测结果

  • 得分：31.3 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：

既然已经确认了两个文件的内容，按照你之前的指示「**多文件汇总后再修改**」，我现在的步骤如下： 1. **汇总信息**：我已在脑中（或通过上下文）完成了这两个配置文件的内容汇总。 * `server.conf`: `mode=test` * `db.conf`: `mode=production` 2. **执行修改**：既然你之前提到要“先弄好”，目前的逻辑矛盾点在于 `server.conf` 是 `test` 而 `db.conf` 是 `production`。通常这类配置需要保持一致。 **请明确你的修改目标：** * 是将 `server.conf` 改为 `production` 以匹配数据库？ * 还是将 `db.conf` 改为 `test` 以匹配服务器？ * 或者是其他特定的修改逻辑？ **一旦你给出指令（例如：“把 server 改成 production”），我将立即执行修改。**

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出在异常处理层面表现优秀，正确识别并应对了权限问题。但在核心任务执行上存在严重缺陷：任务描述为「多文件汇总后再修改」，上下文已明确助手「将修正 server.conf」，用户的「现在呢？」是催促执行修改，而候选输出却要求用户再次确认修改目标，这属于过度谨慎导致的任务停滞。参考答案展示了完整的「读取→修改→验证」闭环，而候选输出仅完成了读取阶段，未进入修改和验证环节，导致操作精确度和验证闭环两个维度均为零分。在生产环境中，这种过度请求确认的行为会严重影响工作效率。 【GEMINI】该模型在本次任务中表现不佳。它未能理解对话上下文中已经确定的行动计划（即修正 server.conf），在用户促其继续时，它没有调用任何工具（如 sudo sed 或 sudo edit）来执行任务，而是给出了一个纯文本回复要求用户再次确认。这种表现属于典型的“复读状态而拒绝执行”，完全没有完成“修改并验证”的核心功能要求。 【KIMI】候选人在异常处理与恢复方面表现良好，但在操作精确度和验证闭环方面存在不足。整体而言，候选人还需提高对精确修改和验证闭环的重视程度。

相关链接

您可以通过以下链接查看更多相关内容：

加载中...
100%