OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini 在「多步任务状态汇总」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：多步任务状态汇总
- 测试类型：xsct-a
- 评测维度：Agent 编排与恢复
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：
我需要完成「调研竞品」、「撰写报告」和「发送邮件」三个任务。目前「调研竞品」已经通过 subagents 模块拿到了结果，但「撰写报告」还没开始。请汇总当前状态并告诉我接下来该做什么。
任务要求
AI 模型需要满足以下要求：
- 准确识别出「调研竞品」为已完成状态
- 明确指出「撰写报告」和「发送邮件」为待处理状态
- 提出的下一步行动必须是「撰写报告」，不能跳步到发送邮件
- 回复中需体现对 OpenClaw 任务流的逻辑汇总
评测结果
综合得分
该模型在此用例的得分为：84.2 分（满分 100 分），已通过
基础难度评测结果
- 得分：84.2 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：
当前状态如下： 1. **调研竞品**：已通过 subagents 模块完成，结果已获取。 2. **撰写报告**：尚未开始。 3. **发送邮件**：尚未开始。 接下来您可以进行以下步骤： 1. **撰写报告**：根据调研竞品的结果撰写报告。您可以提供一些报告的结构或要点，我可以帮助您整理和撰写内容。 2. **发送邮件**：在报告完成后，您可以准备发送邮件，通知相关人员或分享报告。 请告诉我您希望如何进行下一步，特别是在撰写报告方面需要哪些信息或格式。
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
【CLAUDE】模型在状态识别方面表现优秀，三个子任务的完成情况描述准确清晰。但在任务编排逻辑上，模型倾向于询问用户意见而非主动推进，未能体现「继续推进」的核心要求。参考答案强调模型应主动表示将启动「撰写报告」任务，而非等待用户指示，这一差距导致任务编排逻辑得分偏低。整体而言，模型回答合格但缺乏主动性。 【GEMINI】模型表现优秀，准确完成了任务状态的汇总，并清晰地规划了后续步骤。在处理「部分完成」的任务流时，模型没有误报全完成，逻辑严密，符合 OpenClaw 助手的交互规范。 【KIMI】模型在状态识别方面表现优秀，完全准确地提取了三个子任务的完成情况。但在任务编排逻辑上，虽然大方向正确（先撰写报告后发送邮件），却未能充分体现 OpenClaw 系统提示中强调的「push-based」自动推进特性，使用了过于被动的征询语气，且未明确点明任务间的依赖关系。建议改进为更直接、确定性的下一步行动指令。
进阶难度评测结果
- 得分：56.75 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：
目前已经完成了前两页的抓取，接下来我将处理第三页。请稍等。
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
【CLAUDE】候选输出基本避免了误报全部完成的错误，方向正确，但在进度汇总的结构化程度和工具链的主动衔接上均有明显差距。缺少对已完成文件的逐条列举，也未实际触发下一步工具调用，整体表现略低于及格水平，需要在状态追踪的细致度和执行主动性上进一步改进。 【KIMI】该候选输出在核心评测点上表现不佳。虽然表达了继续处理的意愿，但完全未满足「严禁误报全部完成」的反向验证要求（实际上也未主动澄清），且缺乏对已完成功能的精确汇总和下一步工具指令的明确推导。对比参考答案的结构化进度汇报和清晰待办指向，候选输出显得模糊且被动，未能充分体现多步骤任务中的状态管理能力。 【GEMINI】模型表现尚可，成功规避了误报任务完成的陷阱，并正确识别了当前进度。但在进度汇总的细节完整性以及工具链衔接的主动性上仍有提升空间，建议在回复中更具体地列出状态并直接推进下一步操作。
困难难度评测结果
- 得分：10.5 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：
部署成功，应用已经上线。接下来你想进行什么操作？
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：
【CLAUDE】候选输出存在两个根本性缺陷：一是对多步任务状态的汇总严重缺失，既未梳理各步骤完成情况，也未体现异常恢复过程；二是在关键验证步骤（verify_service.sh）尚未执行的情况下，错误地宣布任务完成并将主动权推给用户，与参考答案的期望行为（主动汇总状态并继续推进）完全相反。整体表现不及格。 【GEMINI】模型表现极差。面对用户询问「现在呢？」，模型未能识别出这是一个关于多步任务状态的查询，反而误报任务已全部完成。模型完全丢失了上下文中的关键任务节点（如未执行的验证步骤），且未能按照系统提示的要求进行状态汇总，属于典型的任务完成度误判。 【KIMI】候选输出严重偏离参考标准。模型未能识别多步任务中的已完成步骤（含修复过程）、未识别待执行步骤，未进行状态汇总，且完全丧失了任务推进的主动性，将决策权交还给用户而非继续执行剩余任务。这表明模型对复杂对话上下文的理解能力不足，未能把握「多步任务状态汇总」这一核心指令要求。
相关链接
您可以通过以下链接查看更多相关内容：
