OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini 在「误删单文件恢复」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-4o-mini
- 用例名称：误删单文件恢复
- 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：
我不小心把「config.json」删除了，但我记得之前在「backup」文件夹里存过副本，能帮我找回来吗？
任务要求
AI 模型需要满足以下要求：
- 准确识别用户需求为「文件恢复」
- 提出先检查「backup」目录内容的计划
- 明确指出恢复操作需要使用「cp」或「read+write」组合
- 回复中包含对操作风险的提示
评测结果
综合得分
该模型在此用例的得分为：34.8 分（满分 100 分），未通过
基础难度评测结果
- 得分：34.8 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：
让我来检查一下「backup」文件夹的内容，看看是否能找到「config.json」的副本。稍等片刻。
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
【CLAUDE】模型的回复方向基本正确（识别了文件恢复需求并提到检查 backup 目录），但实际执行质量极低：既未调用任何工具，也未给出完整的操作计划和风险提示，仅是一句「稍等片刻」的口头承诺。与参考答案相比，缺少实质性的工具调用和步骤规划，整体表现不及格。 【GEMINI】模型表现不佳。面对用户明确的恢复需求，模型仅给出了简单的口头回应，既没有执行必要的工具调用（如 ls），也没有制定清晰的恢复步骤，更未涉及风险提示。与参考答案相比，缺乏主动性和专业性，未能有效解决用户问题。 【KIMI】模型生成结果过于简略，仅停留在口头表达检查意图的层面，既未形成完整的恢复计划，也未实际调用任何工具。与参考答案相比，缺少明确的步骤规划、风险意识和工具使用，未能满足「先检查后操作」的任务要求。
进阶难度评测结果
- 得分：51.8 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：
我会先读取「README_v2.md」的内容，然后将其恢复到主目录。请稍等。
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
【CLAUDE】模型具备基本的意图表达，能够理解用户需要先验证内容再恢复的操作流程，但最终回复仅停留在自然语言描述阶段，未调用任何实际工具，与参考答案要求的「明确给出 read 工具调用」存在明显差距。在工具调用驱动的 Agent 场景下，仅有意图表达而无工具执行是核心缺陷。建议模型在明确可执行动作时，应直接调用工具而非仅描述意图。 【GEMINI】模型在处理多步任务时表现较差，未能将意图转化为实际的工具调用。在面对用户明确的「确认内容」指令时，模型仅停留在口头回复阶段，未执行任何实际操作，导致任务无法推进。 【KIMI】模型生成结果存在严重缺陷：虽然口头表述了正确的处理思路（识别最新版本、读取内容、恢复文件），但完全没有执行任何实际的工具调用，所有操作均停留在承诺层面。在需要多步工具调用的任务场景中，这种「只说不做」的回复无法满足用户需求，属于典型的「幻觉式」回应。建议模型在实际任务中必须落实工具调用，而非仅作口头描述。
困难难度评测结果
- 得分：39.2 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：
我将把备份文件的内容恢复到「.env」。请稍等。
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
【CLAUDE】模型在用户给出极简提示「现在呢？」时，仅输出了一句笼统的承诺语句，既未调用任何工具，也未列出具体操作步骤。与参考答案要求的「read备份→write目标文件→ls验证」完整流程相比，生成结果几乎没有实质内容。对于异常处理、路径切换、验证步骤等核心功能要求均未涉及，整体得分极低。 【GEMINI】模型在技术路径的探索和异常处理上表现出色，但在任务执行的闭环管理上存在明显短板。面对简短指令时，模型应主动执行预定义的恢复流程并提供明确的验证反馈，而非仅停留在口头回复阶段。 【KIMI】模型在预设上下文中展现了一定的路径切换意识，但在关键的用户追问环节严重失职。最终回复仅为一句空泛承诺，完全缺失工具调用、执行步骤和验证环节，未能满足功能要求中的任何硬性指标。在异常处理维度，虽前期有路径切换，但最终未落实执行；在复杂场景决策维度，极简提示导致模型彻底放弃任务流，表现出明显的指令跟随失效。整体表现不及格，需强化工具调用意识和任务闭环能力。
相关链接
您可以通过以下链接查看更多相关内容：
