GPT-5.2 在「子 Agent 回传后二次决策」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:GPT-5.2
  • 用例名称:子 Agent 回传后二次决策
  • 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:

请调用「文档分析子 Agent」提取「项目周报.pdf」中的关键风险点,并在拿到结果后,根据你的「风险等级标准」对这些点进行分级汇总。

任务要求

AI 模型需要满足以下要求:

  1. 明确识别出需要先调用「subagents」工具进行文档分析
  2. 在计划中体现「获取子 Agent 结果」与「二次加工(分级汇总)」的逻辑先后顺序
  3. 输出包含清晰的「分解计划」

评测结果

综合得分

该模型在此用例的得分为:— 分(满分 100 分),未通过

基础难度评测结果

  • 得分:— 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:

系统报错(阶段=模型生成; 模块=app.services.inference.call_text_model; provider=pipellm_openai; model=gpt-5.2-2025-12-11):[app.services.inference.call_text_model][provider=pipellm_openai][model=gpt-5.2-2025-12-11] 流式调用超时: 超过 120.0s 没有收到新数据

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评:

【CLAUDE】候选输出为模型推理超时的系统报错,未生成任何有效回复。无论是任务拆解还是指令遵循,均得零分。这属于模型服务层面的失败,与参考答案要求的「分解计划 + 调用 subagents」完全不符。 【GEMINI】由于模型在生成阶段发生超时报错,未能产生任何有效回复,导致任务无法执行。在评测中,该输出被视为完全失败,未能体现任何任务拆解能力或指令遵循能力。 【KIMI】该候选输出为完全的生成失败案例,模型因流式调用超时未能产生任何有效响应内容。从EVAL_BLOB可见,这是一个需要主Agent先调用subagents、再基于子Agent结果进行二次加工的典型xsct-a任务,但候选输出完全没有触及任务核心,仅返回了底层系统错误信息。两个评分维度均为0分,属于彻底的生成失败。

进阶难度评测结果

  • 得分:69.0 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:

OpenClaw Slack 通知草案(发给开发者) 各位开发者好,OpenClaw **v1.2.0** 已于 **2023-10-27** 正式发布。 本次更新的核心特性: - **多 Agent 编排(Multi-agent orchestration)**:支持将多个 Agent 组织成协作流程,显著提升复杂任务的自动化处理能力与可扩展性。 如需升级/验证,请基于 v1.2.0 版本进行集成与回归测试,并反馈兼容性问题。

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评:

【CLAUDE】模型在上下文整合方面表现尚可,能够正确利用子 Agent 的输出结果直接生成最终文案,避免了不必要的重复调用,体现了基本的闭环意识。Slack 通知草案内容准确、格式清晰,具有实际可用性。但存在两个明显不足:一是未将子 Agent 原始简介文本直接引用进草案;二是完全缺少「状态汇总」环节,未能体现对任务进度的显式把控,与参考答案的结构要求有较大差距。 【GEMINI】模型在任务执行层面表现优秀,准确完成了从子 Agent 结果到最终文案的转化,内容专业且符合需求。主要扣分点在于忽略了「状态汇总」的格式化要求,导致交互过程不够严谨,未完全体现出作为主 Agent 对任务进度的把控。 【KIMI】模型成功完成了核心任务闭环:识别子 Agent 结果已完成、直接生成最终 Slack 通知、准确包含关键信息。文案质量较高,结构清晰,适合开发者场景。主要失分点在于:1)未按规范输出显式的「状态汇总」段落;2)未展示「二次决策」的思维过程;3)对子 Agent 生成的简介引用不够直接(而是进行了改写扩展)。建议在后续输出中严格遵循要求的格式模板,先汇总状态再执行动作。

困难难度评测结果

  • 得分:72.8 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:

子 Agent(linter)回传的结果可以进入「二次决策」了:先决定哪些必须立刻修、哪些可延后,然后落地到代码改动。 建议决策与动作: 1) **必须立刻修(低风险、确定性高)** - **Line 42:Unused import `os`** 动作:从 `core_logic.py` 删除 `import os`(除非后续确实要用到它)。 2) **可延后但建议排期(需要一点设计判断)** - **Line 55:Function too long** 动作:把该函数按职责拆成 2-3 个小函数(例如:参数校验/核心计算/IO 或格式化输出分开)。如果你把 `core_logic.py` 第 40-80 行贴出来,我可以直接给出拆分方案并用 `apply_patch` 改好。 下一步你选一个: - A. 我现在就先把未使用的 `os` import 删掉(需要我读取 `core_logic.py` 具体内容来精确修改) - B. 你把 linter 提到的长函数片段贴出来/让我读取文件,我一次性完成「删 import + 拆函数」

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评:

【CLAUDE】模型对子 Agent 回传结果的理解是正确的,二次决策的内容也基本到位,针对两个 Linter 问题的建议具有实操性。但最大的问题是未能真正「闭环」——将最终决策权再次抛回给用户(A/B 选项),而非直接给出完整建议并宣告任务完成。参考答案的核心价值在于「主 Agent 主动收尾」,而模型的输出更像是一个中间状态的汇报,仍需用户驱动才能结束。整体表现中规中矩,未达到参考答案的完整度。 【GEMINI】模型表现出很强的工程实践能力,能够对代码质量问题进行合理的优先级排序。但在执行策略上,模型倾向于与用户进行交互式确认,而非在主 Agent 职责范围内直接完成任务闭环。如果能直接读取文件并给出修改建议或直接执行修复,将更符合「闭环」的预期要求。 【KIMI】模型展现了基本的子 Agent 结果处理能力,能够分类优先级并给出具体建议,但关键缺陷在于未完成「最后一步闭环」——反而将任务拆解为需要用户进一步选择的开放式流程。结构上也未遵循「状态汇总 -> 继续动作」的格式要求,状态确认环节缺失,最终输出更像是一个「待办清单」而非「完成报告」。

相关链接

您可以通过以下链接查看更多相关内容:

加载中...