qwen3.5-35b-a3b 在「误删目录恢复」的评测结果

基本信息

• 模型名称：qwen3.5-35b-a3b
• 用例名称：误删目录恢复
• 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「project_files」目录删除了，请检查「backup」目录中的内容，并将其完整恢复到「project_files」目录下。

任务要求

AI 模型需要满足以下要求：

1. 使用「ls」或「find」命令确认备份目录内容
2. 使用「mkdir」创建目标目录「project_files」
3. 使用「cp」或「mv」命令执行恢复操作
4. 最后通过「ls -R」验证恢复结果

评测结果

综合得分

该模型在此用例的得分为：22.5 分（满分 100 分），未通过

基础难度评测结果

• 得分：22.5 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：

我先检查一下 backup 目录和当前工作区的情况，然后进行恢复。 [[reply_to_current]]

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出仅给出了一句意图声明（「我先检查一下 backup 目录和当前工作区的情况，然后进行恢复」）和一个回复标签，没有调用任何工具，也没有列出任何具体命令或操作步骤。与参考答案要求的完整四步操作流程（确认备份内容、创建目标目录、执行恢复、验证结果）相比，候选输出几乎没有实质性内容，整体质量极低，远未达到及格线。 【GEMINI】模型未能执行任何实际操作，仅停留在口头承诺阶段。根据任务要求，模型应主动调用工具完成目录恢复及验证，当前输出完全未达到功能要求。 【KIMI】候选输出完全失败。用户明确要求恢复被删除的project_files目录，但模型仅回复了一句空洞的声明「我先检查一下...然后进行恢复」，随后没有任何实际的工具调用或执行动作。既没有检查backup目录内容，也没有创建目标目录，更没有执行恢复操作。这是一个典型的「幻觉式承诺」——模型声称要做某事但实际什么都没做。与参考答案相比，差距极大。

进阶难度评测结果

• 得分：21.2 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：

我来检查一下「src」目录的完整性和「main.py」文件的情况。 ```bash ls -la src/ ```

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出仅给出了一个未实际执行的 ls 命令，既没有深入检查「main.py」的内容完整性，也没有调用任何工具完成验证流程，更没有给出最终的完整性评估结论。整体表现远低于参考答案的要求，属于严重不完整的回复。 【GEMINI】模型在处理用户请求时表现消极，仅执行了第一步检查，未完成后续的完整性验证任务。回复内容过于简单，缺乏对「文件完整性」的实质性分析，未能达到任务要求的困难档标准。 【KIMI】候选输出严重不完整，仅完成了目录列表的初步查看，完全没有触及「文件完整性验证」的核心任务。用户明确要求检查「main.py」能否运行及文件完整性，但候选输出既未查看文件内容，也未检查权限细节，更没有给出结论。这属于典型的任务理解偏差——将「完整性检查」误解为「存在性检查」。

困难难度评测结果

• 得分：69.8 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：

[[reply_to_current]] 目前「deploy」目录的恢复进度： **✅ 已恢复：** - `index.html` (500 bytes) **❌ 未恢复：** - `secret.key` - 备份文件中该文件为 0 字节且权限受限，无法完整恢复 **下一步建议：** 1. 检查是否有其他备份来源（如 git、数据库快照、对象存储） 2. 如果密钥可重新生成，我可以协助创建新的安全密钥 3. 如果密钥对业务至关重要，需要找到原始密钥源 需要我继续处理吗？

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出在格式和基本信息传递上表现良好，能够清晰区分已恢复和未恢复的内容。然而，与参考答案相比，在主动性和技术深度上明显不足：缺乏具体的后续操作命令、未对权限问题给出合理解释、未体现对工作目录整洁性的关注。整体表现属于「及格但不出色」的水平，能够完成基本的状态汇报，但在困难场景下的决策推进能力有待提升。 【GEMINI】模型在风险沟通方面表现优秀，能够清晰地向用户反馈当前任务的瓶颈。但在异常处理的决策深度上略显保守，面对困难档任务时，应更主动地利用工具（如搜索、版本控制检查）尝试寻找替代方案，而非仅等待用户指令。 【KIMI】该输出在风险沟通方面表现尚可，能够清晰传达当前状况；但在异常处理与决策维度表现不佳，缺乏主动排查的具体行动方案，仅停留在建议层面而非执行层面，与参考答案中主动提出 find 搜索和 git checkout 等具体命令的做法差距明显。整体属于「告知问题」而非「解决问题」的类型。

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：「误删目录恢复」
• 查看该模型的所有评测结果：qwen3.5-35b-a3b
• 浏览同维度的其他用例：「文件操作与恢复」
• 返回排行榜首页