OpenAI: GPT-5 Mini 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:OpenAI: GPT-5 Mini
- 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:
- 明确识别出需要先调用「subagents」工具进行文档分析
- 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
- 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:30.0 分(满分 100 分),未通过
基础难度评测结果
- 得分:30.0 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:
我将调用“文档分析子 Agent”来处理“项目周报.pdf”。我会先列出可用的子 Agent,然后启动或交互以提取关键风险点,最后根据风险等级标准进行分级汇总。现在开始调用。[[reply_to_current]] initiating subagent list call...调用 subagents.list() 以查找“文档分析子 Agent”。(tool call) subagents list
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评:
【KIMI】候选输出未能理解任务核心:子 Agent 已回传结果后主 Agent 需补最后一步闭环。实际输出仅停留在初始的 subagents.list() 调用,既无清晰计划结构,也未体现「先子 Agent 分析、后主 Agent 分级」的两阶段逻辑。格式上混杂多种风格,严重不符合 OpenClaw 的规范要求。
进阶难度评测结果
- 得分:77.8 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:
@here OpenClaw v1.2.0 已发布(2023-10-27)🎉 简短说明 - 版本:v1.2.0 - 核心特性:多 Agent 编排(multi-agent orchestration),显著提升复杂任务的自动化与协调能力。 发布要点 - 作用范围:更容易在复杂工作流中并行/串行调度多个 agent,适用于需要多角色协作的自动化场景。 - 对开发者的影响:可能影响到与任务编排、状态管理和任务分发相关的模块;建议重点关注与 agent 通信、调度策略及并发控制相关的集成点。 建议动作(请各位根据职责调整) 1. 拉取并本地验证:git pull → 升级依赖/镜像 → 在 dev 环境跑完整集成测试。 2. CI/CD:检查并更新 CI 流程中与 agent 编排相关的测试/部署脚本。 3. 回归测试:重点跑与并发调度、任务重试、状态一致性有关的用例。 4. 问题回报:如发现兼容性或性能回退,请在 #dev 或直接 @release-manager(替换为实际负责人)反馈,并附上重现步骤与日志。 5. 发布文档:阅读/补充变更日志与升级指南(链接见下方)。 参考链接 - Changelog / Release notes: - 升级指南 / FAQ: 如需我把这条消息发到指定的 Slack 频道或替换联系人/链接,我可以帮你完善并发送。
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优秀,准确提取并运用了子 Agent 的输出结果,生成了内容详实、结构清晰的 Slack 通知草案,核心要素(版本号、核心特性)均完整呈现。主要不足是缺少显式的「状态汇总」环节,未按照预期格式先汇报当前任务进度再给出结果,导致状态汇总维度得分偏低。整体质量良好,实用性强,但格式规范性有待提升。 【GEMINI】模型表现优秀,不仅完成了用户要求的「Slack 通知草案」生成,还主动扩展了针对开发者的实用建议(如 CI/CD、回归测试等),体现了作为主 Agent 的高阶辅助价值。文案逻辑严密,完全符合任务闭环要求。 【KIMI】模型生成的 Slack 通知草案内容质量较高,结构专业、面向开发者、包含核心信息,且正确执行了「主 Agent 直接闭环」的决策。但严重偏离了系统提示中隐含的交互范式——未进行「状态汇总」即直接输出,导致上下文整合的完整性和状态把控的准确性受损。建议在生成最终内容前,先显式确认子 Agent 输出已接收并准备基于其进行下一步处理。
困难难度评测结果
- 得分:15.2 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:
我先把文件内容读出来,定位并修复 linter 报告的问题:现在读取 core_logic.py。read('core_logic.py')</assistant окончательంత్ర
AI 评审点评
以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评:
【CLAUDE】模型在此次评测中表现极差。面对「子 Agent 已回传结果,主 Agent 需完成二次决策闭环」这一明确场景,模型不仅没有汇总 Linter 的错误/警告并给出修复建议,反而错误地决定重新读取已经处理过的文件,且输出末尾出现明显乱码。整个回答既没有体现对已有上下文的正确理解,也没有完成任何实质性的决策或闭环动作,与参考答案的要求相去甚远。 【GEMINI】模型表现不佳。未能有效利用上下文中的子 Agent 回传结果,导致任务陷入死循环。模型未能理解「二次决策」的指令意图,未能将 Linter 的原始输出转化为具体的修复建议,未达到任务闭环要求。 【KIMI】模型生成结果严重偏离任务目标。子 Agent(Linter)已明确回传了两条具体问题(Unused import 和 Function too long),但模型未识别这一状态,反而计划重新读取文件并直接修复,完全违背了「二次决策」的要求——即基于子 Agent 结果生成修复建议而非亲自执行修复。同时缺失状态汇总、未确认路径纠偏成功、未输出结构化建议,整体表现不及格。
相关链接
您可以通过以下链接查看更多相关内容: