OpenAI: gpt-oss-20b 在「评分细则表格排版」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：OpenAI: gpt-oss-20b
- 用例名称：评分细则表格排版
- 测试类型：xsct-a
- 评测维度：文档格式排版
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：
请帮我在当前工作目录下创建一个名为 scoring_rubric.md 的评分细则表格文件。要求如下： 1. 表格标题为「电路仿真实操评分细则」，总分50分，考核时长60分钟。 2. 表头依次为：序号、考核项目、评分标准、规定/标称值、分值、评分类型（M/J）、得分。 3.「规定/标称值」列所有单元格保持为空（留白）。 4. 表格内容分为两个区域：先列出客观评分项（评分类型为M，共3项，分值分别为10、10、10），再列出主观评分项（评分类型为J，共2项，分值分别为10、10）。 5. 客观评分项的考核项目分别为：电路原理图绘制、仿真参数设置、仿真结果输出；主观评分项的考核项目分别为：电路优化方案、设计报告撰写。 6. 每个考核项目需填写简要的评分标准描述（一句话即可）。 7. 表格末尾添加一行合计行，显示总分50分。
任务要求
AI 模型需要满足以下要求：
- 文件名为 scoring_rubric.md，保存在当前工作目录下
- 表格标题包含「电路仿真实操评分细则」，并注明总分50分、考核时长60分钟
- 表头依次为：序号、考核项目、评分标准、规定/标称值、分值、评分类型（M/J）、得分
- 「规定/标称值」列所有单元格保持为空
- 先列出3项客观评分项（M），再列出2项主观评分项（J）
- 客观评分项分值分别为10、10、10，主观评分项分值分别为10、10，合计50分
- 每个考核项目有简要评分标准描述
- 表格末尾有合计行，显示总分50分
评测结果
综合得分
该模型在此用例的得分为：96.3 分（满分 100 分），已通过
基础难度评测结果
- 得分：96.3 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：
assistantcommentary to=write code{"path":"scoring_rubric.md","content":"# 电路仿真实操评分细则\n\n- 总分: 50 分\n- 考核时长: 60 分钟\n\n| 序号 | 考核项目 | 评分标准 | 规定/标称值 | 分值 | 评分类型（M/J） | 得分 |\n|------|----------|----------|--------------|------|-----------------|------|\n| 1 | 电路原理图绘制 | 原理图完整、连线规范、符号使用正确 | | 10 | M | |\n| 2 | 仿真参数设置 | 参数设置合理、符合题目要求、无错误 | | 10 | M | |\n| 3 | 仿真结果输出 | 输出结果清晰、数据完整、与预期一致 | | 10 | M | |\n| 4 | 电路优化方案 | 方案创新、优化效果显著、实现可行 | | 10 | J | |\n| 5 | 设计报告撰写 | 报告结构完整、文字表达清晰、图表合理 | | 10 | J | |\n| | **合计** | | | **50** | | |\n"}
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
【CLAUDE】候选模型的输出质量很高，完整满足了所有核心要求：正确使用write工具创建了scoring_rubric.md文件，表格结构完整，表头7列齐全，客观项（M）在前主观项（J）在后，规定/标称值列全部留白，分值合计50分，末尾有合计行。评分标准描述简洁合理，与参考答案相比质量相当甚至略有提升（描述更详细）。总分/时长的呈现方式采用列表而非加粗行内文本，属于可接受的格式变体。整体表现优秀。 【GEMINI】模型完美执行了所有指令，生成的 Markdown 表格格式规范，内容完全符合评分细则的各项要求，展现了极高的指令遵循能力。 【KIMI】候选输出完全符合任务要求，表格结构完整、格式规范、文件操作正确。评分标准描述比参考答案更详细但仍符合「简要描述」的要求。唯一微小差异是「规定/标称值」表头多了一个空格，不影响实际功能和可读性。整体质量优秀。
进阶难度评测结果
- 得分：5.8 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：
assistantcommentary to=read code{"path":"answer.docx","line_start":1,"line_end":200}
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
【CLAUDE】候选输出极度不完整，仅包含一个格式存疑的工具调用片段（尝试读取answer.docx），整个任务流程几乎未执行：未读取template.docx、未生成评分细则表格、未写入result.docx。所有核心要求均未满足，属于严重未完成的输出。 【GEMINI】模型在执行任务时表现极差，仅执行了第一步读取操作后便停止，未读取模板文件，未生成目标文件 result.docx，未能完成任务要求的任何核心逻辑。该输出属于任务执行失败。 【KIMI】候选输出严重不完整，仅包含一个格式不规范的未完成工具调用，完全没有读取 template.docx、没有生成评分细则表、没有写入 result.docx 文件。所有核心功能要求均未满足，属于明显的生成失败。
困难难度评测结果
- 得分：— 分
- 通过状态：未通过
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
模型返回空输出，已跳过 AI 评分（finish_reason=stop）
相关链接
您可以通过以下链接查看更多相关内容：
