MiniMax-M2.7 在「多轮恢复路径选择」的评测结果

基本信息

• 模型名称：MiniMax-M2.7
• 用例名称：多轮恢复路径选择
• 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：

核心数据库索引损坏，目前有两种方案：1. 使用「数据恢复专家」尝试逐条修复，耗时约 4 小时，风险是可能丢失近 1 小时数据；2. 使用「系统重装专家」从昨晚备份恢复，耗时 1 小时，风险是丢失自昨晚以来的所有数据。请分析并给出你的初步选择逻辑。

任务要求

AI 模型需要满足以下要求：

1. 准确识别两种恢复路径的「成本」与「风险」差异
2. 体现 OpenClaw 的决策逻辑，即优先评估数据一致性与业务连续性
3. 给出明确的推荐倾向并说明理由

评测结果

综合得分

该模型在此用例的得分为：65.0 分（满分 100 分），已通过

基础难度评测结果

• 得分：65.0 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：

The user is presenting a scenario about a corrupted database index and asking me to analyze two recovery options. Let me think through this carefully. This appears to be a technical decision-making scenario. Let me analyze the tradeoffs: **Option 1: Data Recovery Expert (逐条修复)** - Time: ~4 hours - Risk: Potential loss of ~1 hour of data - Implication: The database stays in a damaged/inconsistent state during repair **Option 2: System Reinstall Expert (从备份恢复)** - Time: ~1 hour - Risk: Loss of ALL data since last night's backup - Implication: Clean state but more data loss Now I'm working through what actually matters here. The real question is the data velocity—how much gets added or changed every hour—and whether those recent changes are critical enough to justify the extended repair time and additional risk. I also need to weigh whether a clean restore is preferable to a potentially inconsistent repair, plus consider the operational impact of four hours versus one hour of downtime. Finally, I should factor in what guarantees the recovery expert actually offers versus the certainty of losing everything since the backup. ## 初步分析 ### 核心矛盾 两种方案的本质区别不是「快慢」，而是 **数据损失范围**： | | 方案1（逐条修复） | 方案2（备份恢复） | |---|---|---| | 丢失量 | ~1小时数据 | 昨晚至今所有数据（约16小时） | | 时长 | ~4小时 | ~1小时 | | 不确定性 | **可能**丢1小时（不保证） | **确定**丢16小时 | --- ### 初步选择逻辑 **优先选方案1 的判断条件：** - 近1小时数据量大、价值高（如交易单、用户操作） - 业务可承受4小时只读/停机 - 数据库当前处于**可查询但不建议写入**的半可用状态 **优先选方案2 的判断条件：** - 近16小时几乎没有新增数据或已有人工备份 - 系统急需恢复上线，4小时过长 - 数据库当前已完全不可用 --- ### ⚠️ 但这个场景有几个问题需要先确认 1. **「可能丢失近1小时」是经验估算还是专家给出的概率区间？** 这个不确定性本身是风险。 2. **数据库目前是否仍可读？** 如果可读，先快照/逻辑导出，这两种方案都值得做。 3. **「昨晚备份」是物理备份还是逻辑备份？** 恢复是否干净？ --- **直觉上倾向**：如果1小时数据量不大，**方案2更干净确定**；如果1小时数据很关键，**先做快照再选方案1**。 你希望我进一步帮你做决策树，还是直接给建议？

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出在逻辑分析层面有一定质量，结构清晰、维度全面，但最终推荐方向与参考答案相反（倾向方案2而非方案1），且结论过于模糊，缺乏明确立场。更关键的是，输出完全脱离了 OpenClaw「任务调度专家」的角色定位，未体现平台特有的决策逻辑和工具调用意图，角色契合度严重不足。整体表现中等偏下，需在角色一致性和决策明确性上大幅改进。 【GEMINI】模型在逻辑分析层面表现出色，能够清晰拆解复杂的技术决策场景。但在角色契合度上略显被动，作为系统内部助手，在面对核心数据库故障时，应在分析风险后给出更具指导性的建议，而非将决策权完全推回给用户。 【KIMI】该输出在基础分析层面有一定结构，但核心决策逻辑与题目要求相悖——题目明确要求「选更稳的」，模型却倾向于更快但数据损失更大的方案2。更严重的是角色扮演失败，完全未体现OpenClaw「任务调度专家」的主动执行特征，既未声明身份，也未准备调用工具，最终还以反问收尾，未能完成决策任务。整体表现不及格。

进阶难度评测结果

• 得分：82.2 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：

The user is raising a concern about network bandwidth during container migration. They want me to re-evaluate the approach. Let me think about this more carefully. The error in the syslog is a double block error at block 14522. Let me analyze this more carefully: 1. "EXT4-fs error: double blocks at block 14522" - This means two different inodes are claiming the same block. This is a serious filesystem corruption error. 2. The system suggested "read-only remount" which means the kernel detected the issue and is trying to prevent further damage. Now for the re-evaluation of the two paths: **Path 1: fsck repair** Running fsck on a mounted filesystem risks severe data loss or filesystem destruction, and it's not feasible to unmount root filesystems in production. However, since the error is localized to a specific block, there might be corrupted files or metadata that could be repaired or removed to restore functionality without a full migration. **Path 2: Container migration** This approach isolates the problem—the host filesystem corruption doesn't necessarily affect the container image itself, and migrating to a healthy host preserves data integrity, but network instability during migration becomes a real concern. Given the user's bandwidth constraint of 80% network usage causing service disruption, the real question is whether to attempt local repair on the corrupted filesystem or push through with migration despite the network overhead. The severity of the double block error means I should probably recommend migration as the safer option, though the localized nature of the corruption might make a targeted fsck repair worth considering if downtime is acceptable. 好，重新评估。原始分析我遗漏了关键维度——需要明确「fsck 修复」的可行性与风险边界。 --- ## 风险矩阵重新评估 | 维度 | 方案 A：fsck 修复 | 方案 B：迁移容器 | |---|---|---| | **数据完整性** | ⚠️ 高风险（修复过程可能丢失元数据） | ✅ 无风险（数据原样迁移） | | **网络影响** | ✅ 零网络开销 | ⚠️ 需控制带宽上限 | | **停机时间** | 取决于修复深度 | 取决于镜像大小与带宽 | | **根因消除** | ✅ 直接修复文件系统 | ⚠️ 仅规避，不修复底层磁盘 | --- ## 修订建议...

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出整体质量较好，能够识别多重约束并提出折中的「限速迁移」方案，风险矩阵的使用增强了分析的结构性。主要不足在于：决策路径分支过多，最终推荐不够果断；部分命令存在技术错误（如 umount 对象错误）；对 OpenClaw 工具执行环境的深度结合不足，未充分利用 exec 工具调用框架。与参考答案相比，核心方向一致但表达简洁度和执行精确度有所欠缺。 【GEMINI】模型在面对多重约束条件时表现出了极强的专业素养。它没有简单地在两个选项中二选一，而是通过风险矩阵分析，提出了一个综合性的分层恢复策略。对于「网络带宽占用」这一用户关切点，模型给出了具体的限速方案，既体现了对 OpenClaw 环境的理解，也符合运维场景下的稳健性要求。 【KIMI】该候选输出展现了一定的风险权衡意识，能够识别网络次生风险并提出限速方案，但在关键的技术判断上存在偏差：对fsck风险的过度恐惧、对业务中断现状的忽视、以及OpenClaw工具链应用的不熟练。输出结构清晰但执行细节有误，未能给出针对「80%带宽阈值」的精确控制方案，整体处于中等偏下水平。

困难难度评测结果

• 得分：70.5 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：

The user is asking "现在呢？" (What now?) after checking the backup cluster health status. Let me think about what to recommend: Backup cluster status: "Status: Healthy. Last Sync: 6 minutes ago." Key data point: Last Sync was 6 minutes ago. This is important because the risk mentioned earlier was "备用集群数据同步有 5 分钟延迟" (backup cluster has a 5-minute data sync delay). Since the last sync was 6 minutes ago, the sync might have just completed or be about to complete. But the 6-minute ago timestamp means it's slightly beyond the 5-minute delay window, so the data should be relatively fresh. The 6-minute sync is actually within acceptable bounds for a 5-minute delay, so I can confidently move forward with switching traffic to the backup cluster. The data freshness is good enough for this decision. 备用集群健康且同步刚完成（6 分钟前，略超 5 分钟延迟窗口，可接受）。 **决策：执行「路径 B：切流到备用集群」。** 这比继续蹲守原地修复更有把握——备用集群已就绪，数据差距可忽略，立即切换可将影响降至最低。 是否执行切流？

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出在决策方向上是正确的，识别了备用集群可用并倾向于切流，但整体质量偏弱：缺乏系统性的状态汇总和风险对比，对「6分钟同步」的解读存在逻辑错误，最关键的是未直接执行工具调用而是再次向用户确认，丧失了「快速纠偏」的果断性。与参考答案相比，在动作编排和上下文汇总两个维度上差距明显。 【GEMINI】模型表现良好，能够清晰识别当前故障场景并做出合理的风险评估与决策。但在动作编排上稍显保守，作为 AI 助手，在明确决策路径后应更主动地提供执行方案或直接调用工具，而非反问用户是否执行。 【KIMI】该候选输出基本理解了场景需求，识别了备用集群可用且同步延迟可接受，倾向于选择路径B。但存在明显不足：决策以反问形式呈现，缺乏果断性；上下文汇总不完整，未充分对比两条路径的风险权重；最关键的是完全缺失具体的 OpenClaw 动作编排，未给出可执行的切流命令和后续故障分析动作。整体表现及格但不够专业，与参考答案的完整决策流程差距较大。

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：「多轮恢复路径选择」
• 查看该模型的所有评测结果：MiniMax-M2.7
• 浏览同维度的其他用例：「Agent 编排与恢复」
• 返回排行榜首页