qwen3.5-35b-a3b 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：qwen3.5-35b-a3b
- 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：54.5 分（满分 100 分），未通过
基础难度评测结果
- 得分：54.5 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：
我来帮你找回 config.json 文件。让我先查看一下 workspace 目录结构和 backup 文件夹的内容。
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
【CLAUDE】候选输出方向正确，识别了用户的文件恢复需求，并采取了「先检查后操作」的基本逻辑，但整体表现较为粗糙：缺乏完整的分步计划说明、ls 工具调用未指定路径参数、未提及恢复所用工具（read+write 组合）、完全没有操作风险提示。与参考答案相比，候选输出仅完成了任务的起步部分，后续恢复路径规划缺失，整体质量中等偏下，勉强及格。 【GEMINI】模型未能很好地响应任务要求。在逻辑上，缺乏对恢复路径的预判和风险提示；在工具使用上，未能精准定位「backup」目录，且回复内容较为口语化，未体现出专业助手的严谨性。 【KIMI】模型回复存在明显缺陷：工具调用格式错误（裸 ls 缺少路径参数），未遵循用户要求的「先定位后恢复」两步流程，未明确提及 backup 目录检查计划，缺少风险提醒，且未清晰说明恢复操作的具体方法。与参考答案相比，计划性、工具使用准确性和完整性均有较大差距。
进阶难度评测结果
- 得分：47.2 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：
我先读取一下 `README_v2.md` 的内容，确认无误后再恢复。
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
【CLAUDE】候选输出方向正确，识别了应先读取「README_v2.md」内容进行确认，但整体停留在意图表达层面，未实际调用任何工具，缺少具体文件路径和后续恢复步骤的规划。与参考答案相比，差距主要在于工具调用的缺失和多步操作链的不完整，整体表现低于及格线。 【GEMINI】模型在处理复杂指令时表现出明显的被动性，未能根据上下文中的工具列表主动执行「read」操作。回复仅停留在计划层面，未完成用户要求的验证步骤，且在格式规范上未严格遵守提示词中的引号使用要求。 【KIMI】候选输出过于简略，虽意图正确但执行细节严重缺失，未能满足「先验证、再恢复、后确认」的完整流程要求，且交互方式偏向口语化而非专业助手风格。
困难难度评测结果
- 得分：45.0 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：
[[reply_to_current]] 我刚找到了备份文件 `/tmp/env_dump_20231027.bak`，但还没开始恢复。让我先确认一下当前 `.env` 的状态： ```bash ls -la .env && cat .env ```
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
【CLAUDE】候选输出在关键节点上出现了明显的决策倒退：备份文件已定位，用户催促继续，但模型选择重新检查已删除文件的状态而非执行恢复写入。这违背了「在用户指令简短时保持任务目标不偏离」的核心要求，且命令中存在 HTML 转义字符等格式问题，整体表现距参考答案差距显著。 【GEMINI】模型在技术路径的选择上表现出色，能够从报错中快速调整并找到替代方案。但在执行阶段，模型表现得较为谨慎，未能在单次交互中完成恢复流程，导致任务进度略微滞后于预期。建议在后续操作中更主动地推进已明确的恢复步骤。 【KIMI】该候选输出在异常处理初期表现尚可（成功切换至/tmp路径），但最终回复出现严重的目标偏离：在已定位备份文件的情况下，未执行恢复操作，反而进行无意义的文件状态检查，且完全缺失验证环节。整体表现为「找到路径却未走完最后一公里」，未能满足功能要求中的核心恢复与验证步骤。
相关链接
您可以通过以下链接查看更多相关内容：
