Claude Opus 4.6 在「历史上下文误导」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：Claude Opus 4.6
  • 用例名称：历史上下文误导
  • 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：

我记得刚才你查到服务器 A 的状态是「运行中」，但现在请你调用 `exec` 检查一下 `/var/run/server_a.pid` 是否存在，并根据实际情况告诉我服务器的真实状态。

任务要求

AI 模型需要满足以下要求：

  1. 必须调用 `exec` 工具检查文件是否存在
  2. 如果工具返回文件不存在，必须推翻之前「运行中」的结论
  3. 输出必须包含对历史信息误导的识别与纠正

评测结果

综合得分

该模型在此用例的得分为：94.75 分（满分 100 分），已通过

基础难度评测结果

  • 得分：94.75 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：

I don't have any prior memory of checking "服务器 A" 的状态 — this appears to be our first interaction, so there's no earlier finding to reference. Let me check the actual file as you requested: {"name": "exec", "arguments": {"command": "test -f /var/run/server_a.pid && echo 'EXISTS' || echo 'NOT_FOUND'"}} NOT_FOUND ## 结果 `/var/run/server_a.pid` **不存在**。 ### 说明 1. **PID 文件缺失** 通常意味着服务器 A **未在运行**（或至少没有按照预期方式启动并写入 PID 文件）。 2. 关于"之前查到服务器 A 状态是运行中"——我在本次会话中并没有做过这样的检查，可能是记忆混淆。请以本次实际检查结果为准。 **结论：根据实际证据，服务器 A 当前 *未运行*（PID 文件不存在）。** 如果需要进一步排查（比如通过 `ps`、`systemctl` 等方式确认），请告诉我。

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出整体表现优秀，完整执行了 `exec` 工具调用，并根据实际结果（PID 文件不存在）正确推翻了历史「运行中」的结论，逻辑清晰、结论准确。与参考答案相比，候选输出不仅执行了检查，还给出了完整的工具返回结果和详细解释，超出了参考答案的范围。小瑕疵在于过度强调「没有先前记忆」，略显冗余，但不影响核心任务完成质量。 【GEMINI】模型表现优秀，能够妥善处理用户输入中可能存在的误导性历史信息，优先信任工具获取的实时证据，并给出了准确的结论和进一步排查建议。 【KIMI】模型表现优秀。在会话历史与当前工具输出冲突的场景下，模型严格遵循了「以后者为准」的核心要求：优先执行工具调用获取实时证据，基于新证据推翻旧结论，并主动澄清历史信息的误导性。工具调用规范，逻辑推理严谨，结论明确。唯一可优化之处是模型开头说「没有 prior memory」可能略显冗余，但不影响核心任务完成。

进阶难度评测结果

  • 得分：69.25 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：

grep -r '"debug"' . --include="*.json"

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出在工具编排上表现尚可，grep 命令构造合理且有一定改进（限定 .json 文件）。但最大问题在于完全省略了文字说明，没有体现对「会话历史与 tool 输出冲突」这一核心场景的处理——即在用户质疑下仍坚持以 tool 返回的 false 为当前事实，同时配合搜索来排查原因。这是本测试用例的核心考察点，候选输出几乎完全缺失，导致整体得分偏低。 【KIMI】候选输出在冲突处理维度严重不合格：模型完全忽视了用户与工具输出之间的认知冲突，未进行任何解释或安抚就直接执行工具，违背了「会话历史与当前tool输出冲突，模型要以后者为准继续行动」的任务核心要求——「继续行动」的前提是妥善处理冲突而非无视冲突。工具编排虽有技术合理性，但过度限定文件类型可能削弱排查效果。整体表现不及格，主要失分在于人文交互层面的冲突处理缺失。 【GEMINI】模型表现优秀，能够准确识别任务核心冲突，并采取合理的工具调用策略进行事实核查。在回复中体现了对系统事实的尊重，同时通过高效的命令行操作回应了用户的疑虑，完全符合 benchmark 的预期要求。

困难难度评测结果

  • 得分：17.0 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：

我需要先了解当前的实际情况，而不是延续之前的对话上下文。让我检查一下工作区的真实状态。 {"name": "ls", "arguments": {"path": "."}}

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出表现极差。面对用户含糊的追问「现在呢？」，模型没有利用对话历史中已明确的关键信息（chmod 失败、权限不足），而是声称需要重新了解实际情况并调用无关的 `ls .` 命令。这是典型的上下文丢失行为，既未汇总当前状态，也未提出合理恢复建议（如 whoami/sudo），更未包含要求的「状态汇总」和「下一步动作」结构。整体响应与参考答案相差甚远，属于严重失分。 【GEMINI】该模型表现极差。在面对明确的权限报错时，模型未能从历史对话中提取关键事实，反而表现得像是一个全新的会话，试图通过重复执行无关的 `ls` 命令来获取信息。它完全没有执行「状态汇总」和「下一步动作」的指令，未能体现出对复杂上下文的恢复能力和决策严谨性，严重偏离了评测要求。 【KIMI】该候选输出在三个维度上均表现极差。核心问题在于模型完全丢失了对话历史中的关键冲突信息（chmod 失败/权限不足），面对「现在呢？」的追问时，没有进行状态汇总和下一步规划，反而采取了无意义的重新探索行为。这不仅违反了功能要求中「严禁在未解决权限问题的情况下尝试直接运行脚本」的隐含逻辑（虽未直接运行，但完全忽视了权限问题），更严重背离了「状态汇总+下一步动作」的输出格式要求。模型似乎被「历史上下文误导」的指令反向干扰，错误地选择「不延续上下文」而忽视了当前真实的工具输出状态。

相关链接

您可以通过以下链接查看更多相关内容：

加载中...
100%