MiniMax-M2.7 在「学术长句润色」的评测结果

基本信息

• 模型名称：MiniMax-M2.7
• 用例名称：学术长句润色
• 测试类型：xsct-a
• 评测维度：文档润色与优化

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 请帮我润色以下段落，这段话出现在报告第5章「风险与问题记录」中。要求保持学术书面语风格，提升句子的清晰度和可读性，但不能改变原意。原文如下： This phenomenon might be attributed to the fact that the standardized deployment of resource optimization strategies and redundancy failover mechanisms across the project portfolio, which could have effectively counteracted the operational disruptions ordinarily precipitated by budget constraints and personnel turnover, thereby attenuating their discernible influence during the quarterly risk assessment.

任务要求

AI 模型需要满足以下要求：

1. 润色后的文本必须完整保留原文的核心语义：标准化的资源优化策略和冗余容灾机制抵消了预算限制和人员流动带来的运营中断，从而在季度风险评估中减弱了这些因素的可见影响
2. 润色后的文本应为正式学术书面语风格，避免口语化表达
3. 应提升原文的清晰度和可读性，例如拆分过长从句、减少不必要的修饰词、使逻辑层次更分明
4. 润色结果仍为英文

评测结果

综合得分

该模型在此用例的得分为：89.2 分（满分 100 分），已通过

基础难度评测结果

• 得分：89.2 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：

The user wants me to polish/refine a paragraph from a project report. The paragraph is in English, appearing in Chapter 5 "风险与问题记录" (Risk and Issue Log). The requirements are: 1. Maintain academic written style 2. Improve clarity and readability 3. Do not alter the original meaning Let me analyze the original sentence first: "This phenomenon might be attributed to the fact that the standardized deployment of resource optimization strategies and redundancy failover mechanisms across the project portfolio, which could have effectively counteracted the operational disruptions ordinarily precipitated by budget constraints and personnel turnover, thereby attenuating their discernible influence during the quarterly risk assessment." I'm noticing a grammatical issue here—the sentence seems to be missing a structural element. It reads like it's trying to say "This phenomenon might be attributed to the fact that [the standardized deployment...]" but then there's no main verb completing that clause. The phrase "which could have effectively counteracted" appears to be modifying "the standardized deployment," but the sentence structure doesn't quite work grammatically. The original seems to be attempting to explain that the deployment of optimization strategies and failover mechanisms counteracted disruptions caused by budget constraints and turnover, thus reducing their apparent impact in the quarterly risk assessment. I'll restructure it to be clearer and more concise while preserving that core meaning. 以下是润色后的版本： > This phenomenon may be attributed to the standardized deployment of resource optimization strategies and redundancy failover mechanisms across the project portfolio, which effectively counteracted the operational disruptions typically precipitated by budget constraints and personnel turnover, thereby attenuating their discernible impact during the quarterly risk assessment. **主要修改说明：** 1. **修复结构缺陷**：原文 "the fact that the standardized deployment…"...

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出整体表现良好，准确识别了原文的语法结构缺陷并予以修复，删除了冗余表达，保留了全部核心语义要素，风格符合学术书面语要求。主要不足在于未采用拆句策略（参考答案将长句拆为两句），导致可读性提升幅度不及最优方案；此外将「could have effectively counteracted」改为「effectively counteracted」虽使表达更确定，但轻微改变了原文的推测语气。附带的修改说明详细且准确，体现了较强的语言分析能力。 【GEMINI】模型表现出色，不仅修复了原文存在的语法结构问题，还通过精炼词汇提升了学术表达的专业度。相比参考答案，模型选择保留单句结构但优化了逻辑衔接，同样达到了极佳的润色效果，完全满足任务要求。 【KIMI】候选输出成功修复了原文的语法结构缺陷，完整保留了所有核心语义，并维持了学术书面语风格。但在可读性提升方面较为保守，未能充分采纳拆分长句、简化措辞等更有效的改写策略，与参考答案相比仍有优化空间。

进阶难度评测结果

• 得分：34.9 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：

用户要求： 1. 把"可观测影响"换成更通俗但仍正式的表达 2. 在最后一句补充一个简短的建议性说明，提示读者在解读分层结果时需注意该混杂因素 3. 用 edit 工具直接写入 project_report.docx 的第5章对应位置 首先我需要读取 project_report.docx 文件，找到第5章「风险与问题记录」中对应的段落位置，然后用 edit 工具进行修改。 让我先读取文件内容。 [TOOL_CALL] {tool => "read", args => { --path "project_report.docx" }} [/TOOL_CALL]

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出严重不完整。模型在思考阶段正确分析了任务需求（替换表达、补充建议说明、调用edit工具写入），并合理地决定先读取文件以确定写入位置，但输出在调用 read 工具后即被截断，未能完成后续的润色文本生成和 edit 工具调用。整个任务的核心输出——润色后的文本和文件写入操作——均未完成，导致各维度得分极低。这属于执行中断而非方向错误，若能继续执行，模型的思路是正确的。 【GEMINI】模型表现出色，不仅完美执行了润色任务，还展现了极高的任务规划能力。在处理复杂学术文本时，能够精准拆解逻辑并进行专业化改写，同时严格遵循了工具使用规范，体现了作为专业 AI 助手的素质。 【KIMI】模型表现严重不合格。用户明确要求在润色结果基础上进行调整（替换'可观测影响'、补充建议说明、用 edit 工具写入第5章），但模型仅执行了读取文件操作，完全没有输出润色后的文本，也未调用 edit 工具进行写入。整个任务的核心要求（润色改写）完全未执行，属于典型的'工具调用正确但任务未完成'的失败案例。模型似乎陷入了只读取文件而不继续处理的循环，未能理解用户要求的是在之前润色版本基础上进一步修改并写入文件。

困难难度评测结果

• 得分：90.5 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：

The user wants me to use the edit tool to modify the project_report.docx file. Let me apply the edits as specified. For the Discussion section (about the subgroup analysis findings), I need to: 1. Keep only the first sentence (about drug therapy effects on stratified analysis) 2. Further refine the hedging language 3. Fix the medical logic: anticoagulant therapies prevent thrombosis through inhibiting the coagulation cascade, not directly improving venous stasis hemodynamics For the Limitations section, I need to: 1. Write a new paragraph about sample size and follow-up limitations 2. Use objective, hedging tone acknowledging limitations 3. Suggest future research directions implicitly Let me craft these: **Discussion (first sentence, refined):** "This observation could potentially be attributed to the routine administration of lipid-lowering therapies within the study cohort, which may have mitigated the arterial structural changes commonly associated with hyperlipidemia. In parallel, the consistent use of anticoagulant therapies may have reduced thrombotic risk through inhibition of the coagulation cascade, thereby potentially attenuating the contributions of these factors to the observed outcomes in the stratified analysis." Wait, I need to reconsider the structure. The original phenomenon is about why certain factors weren't significant in subgroup analysis. The mechanism is: - Lipid-lowering drugs → reduce arterial deterioration from hyperlipidemia → therefore hyperlipidemia's effect is not obvious in subgroup analysis - Anticoagulant drugs → reduce thrombosis risk through coagulation inhibition → therefore factors related to venous stasis/thrombosis are not obvious in subgroup analysis The key insight from point 3 is that anticoagulant therapies don't directly improve "venous stasis hemodynamics" - rather, they prevent thrombosis formation through coagulation inhibition. So I should phrase it as: anticoagulant therapies may have reduced thrombotic...

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选模型整体表现良好，准确追踪了多轮对话中的复杂指令，正确修正了anticoagulant therapies与venous stasis之间的医学逻辑关系，使用edit工具完成了文件的分段写入。医学逻辑修正是本次任务的核心难点，模型通过「respectively」结构清晰区分了两类药物的不同机制，表现出色。学术语体规范，hedging表达充分但密度略低于理想水平。主要不足在于第一段中venous stasis概念的显式保留不够清晰，以及Limitations段未提及队列多样性等细节。总体而言，模型完成了任务的核心要求，质量达到SCI期刊投稿的基本标准。 【GEMINI】该模型表现极其出色，不仅展现了强大的学术英语润色能力，更体现了对复杂指令的精准执行力。特别是在医学逻辑修正方面，模型能够识别并纠正用户原文中潜在的生理机制描述错误，体现了极高的专业素养。工具使用规范，完全符合 benchmark 的操作要求。 【KIMI】该候选输出整体质量较高，成功完成了复杂的多轮指令追踪任务。模型准确识别并修正了关键的医学逻辑错误，将抗凝药物的作用机制从「改善血流动力学」纠正为「抑制凝血级联反应」，这是本任务的核心难点。两段文字均采用恰当的学术 hedging 语体，符合SCI期刊发表要求。执行层面，模型正确使用 edit 工具将内容写入指定位置。主要改进空间在于：第一段可进一步拆分降脂与抗凝两个机制为独立分句以增强可读性；第二段可优化列举结构使其更自然。总体而言，该输出达到了 hard 难度任务的要求，展现了较强的复杂指令理解和医学文本润色能力。

相关链接

您可以通过以下链接查看更多相关内容：

• 查看所有模型在此用例的表现：「学术长句润色」
• 查看该模型的所有评测结果：MiniMax-M2.7
• 浏览同维度的其他用例：「文档润色与优化」
• 返回排行榜首页