Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite 在「多轮恢复路径选择」的评测结果

基本信息

• 模型名称：Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
• 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：72.5 分（满分 100 分），已通过

基础难度评测结果

• 得分：72.5 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：

[[reply_to_current]] 考虑到核心数据库索引损坏的严重性，我会根据以下逻辑进行初步选择： **1. 数据恢复专家方案：** * **优点：** 丢失数据量最小（近 1 小时），对业务连续性影响相对较小。 * **缺点：** 耗时较长（4 小时），存在数据丢失的风险，且修复过程可能不稳定。 * **适用场景：** 对数据丢失非常敏感，且业务可以容忍较长时间的停机或降级。 **2. 系统重装专家方案：** * **优点：** 恢复速度快（1 小时），风险明确（丢失昨晚以来的数据）。 * **缺点：** 数据丢失量可能较大，如果昨晚至今有大量重要业务数据，则不可接受。 * **适用场景：** 数据丢失量在可接受范围内，或者业务对恢复速度有极高要求。 **初步选择逻辑：** 我会优先倾向于使用「数据恢复专家」方案，因为其数据丢失量最小。在执行此方案前，我会： 1. **评估近 1 小时内数据的价值：** 如果这 1 小时内的数据极其重要且无法承受任何损失，那么即使「数据恢复专家」有风险，也需要考虑其他更安全的方案（例如，如果可能，先尝试备份当前损坏的数据，再进行修复）。 2. **评估「数据恢复专家」的成功率：** 如果有关于该专家成功率的统计数据或过往案例，我会参考。 3. **准备应急预案：** 无论选择哪种方案，都应准备好相应的应急预案，以应对可能出现的意外情况。 **如果「数据恢复专家」方案的风险（丢失近 1 小时数据）是完全不可接受的，或者其成功率极低，我才会考虑「系统重装专家」方案。** 在这种情况下，我会： 1. **确认昨晚备份的有效性：** 确保备份是完整且可用的。 2. **提前通知相关人员：** 告知业务方和相关团队，系统将恢复至昨晚的状态，可能导致部分数据丢失，并商讨后续数据补录的计划。 **总结：** 我的初步选择逻辑是 **优先尝试「数据恢复专家」**，以最小化数据丢失。如果该方案不可行或风险过高，则 **退而求其次选择「系统重装专家」**，但会提前做好充分的沟通和准备。

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表现尚可，结构清晰、覆盖了主要权衡维度，并给出了倾向性结论。但决策果断性不足，过多篇幅停留在条件分支描述上，未能像参考答案那样直接点明核心业务判断。在 OpenClaw 角色契合度方面存在明显短板：未以任务调度专家身份发言，未提及工具调用或子代理协作意图，与平台特定角色定位脱节较大。 【GEMINI】模型表现优秀，能够准确识别并权衡两种恢复方案的优劣。逻辑分析部分非常扎实，不仅给出了明确的倾向，还补充了必要的风险控制措施。角色契合度方面，语言风格专业且冷静，符合 OpenClaw 运行环境下的助手要求。 【KIMI】该输出在逻辑分析层面表现尚可，能够完成基本的成本-风险权衡并给出倾向性选择，但在 OpenClaw 角色契合度方面存在明显短板。模型未能充分融入「任务调度专家」的身份语境，缺乏具体的工具调用计划和执行导向的表达，使得整体回答更像通用技术建议而非特定系统内的专业决策。建议强化角色代入感和系统操作语境的融入。

进阶难度评测结果

• 得分：71.25 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：

Reasoning: The user is concerned about network bandwidth saturation during container migration and its potential impact on business operations. They want to re-evaluate the path forward. 1. **Acknowledge the concern:** The user's concern about network saturation is valid and requires careful consideration. 2. **Identify the core problem:** The core problem is the risk of business disruption due to high network utilization during migration. 3. **Propose alternative solutions or mitigation strategies:** * **Bandwidth Throttling:** Can we limit the bandwidth used by the migration process? This would reduce the risk of saturation but might increase migration time. * **Migration Scheduling:** Can the migration be scheduled during off-peak hours to minimize impact? * **Incremental Migration:** If possible, can we migrate data in smaller chunks to avoid large, sudden bandwidth spikes? * **Staged Migration:** Migrate less critical components first, then more critical ones. * **Direct Data Copy (if applicable):** If the container data can be accessed directly from the host (e.g., via shared volumes), a direct `rsync` or `cp` might be more efficient and less network-intensive than a full container image transfer. * **Pre-migration Checks:** Perform a network bandwidth test to get a realistic estimate of available bandwidth for migration. * **Fallback Plan:** What happens if the migration *does* cause significant jitter? How quickly can we revert or mitigate? 4. **Re-evaluate the initial assessment:** Given the new constraint (bandwidth limitation), the initial recommendation to "migrate container" needs to be re-evaluated. The risk of business jitter makes it less straightforward. 5. **Formulate a new recommendation:** Based on the above, I should propose a more nuanced approach that addresses the bandwidth concern. **Decision:** I will propose a staged migration approach, possibly with bandwidth throttling, and emphasize the need to monitor bandwidth during the process....

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【KIMI】候选输出展现了基本的运维思维，能够识别网络带宽约束并提出限速思路，但在核心任务要求上存在偏差：未在「磁盘损坏」与「网络抖动」之间进行明确的风险权衡，过度展开网络问题而弱化原始磁盘故障的严重性；方案描述偏策略性，缺乏OpenClaw工具环境下的具体可执行命令，且「先评估再行动」的建议不符合紧急恢复场景的时效性要求。相比参考答案的「受控迁移」明确决策和具体限速参数，本输出在决策果断性和操作精确性上均有差距。 【CLAUDE】候选输出在风险识别和方案方向上基本正确，能够识别网络带宽这一次生风险并提出限速、分批等缓解思路，整体符合运维常识。但与参考答案相比，存在两个明显差距：一是决策收敛性不足，方案过于发散，未能给出清晰的「最优路径」；二是缺乏具体的工具调用示例，未体现对 OpenClaw exec 环境的深度理解。整体属于「方向正确但落地不足」的中等水平回答。 【GEMINI】模型逻辑清晰，对风险的评估非常全面，能够很好地处理用户提出的新约束。虽然在工具调用的具体落地建议上稍显冗长，但整体方案具备很高的实操价值和专业性。

困难难度评测结果

• 得分：30.5 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：

备用集群显示「健康」，但数据同步有 6 分钟延迟，这超过了我们可接受的 5 分钟延迟。 因此，我将选择「路径 A：深入排查日志并修复」。 请执行以下命令查看日志： `journalctl -u api-service -n 100 --no-pager`

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出在核心决策上出现方向性错误：将「6 分钟数据延迟」视为不可接受而放弃切流，转而重新排查已失败的主集群，这与「可用性优先」的正确判断完全相悖。上下文汇总不完整，工具链动作选择错误。整体表现远低于及格线，属于典型的决策失误案例。 【GEMINI】模型在处理生产故障时表现出明显的「过度保守」倾向。在主服务彻底崩溃的紧急情况下，模型未能正确权衡业务连续性与数据一致性的优先级，错误地选择了风险极高的原地排查方案，导致故障恢复失败。建议模型在后续任务中强化对「可用性优先」原则的理解。 【KIMI】该输出在核心决策上出现重大失误。模型将6分钟延迟视为不可接受，却忽视了服务持续宕机的更高风险，违背了「可用性优先」的运维原则。上下文汇总缺失关键失败路径信息，动作编排也未使用OpenClaw工具链完成切流操作。整体表现远低于及格线，属于典型的「过度追求数据一致性而牺牲可用性」的错误决策模式。

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：Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
• 浏览同维度的其他用例：「Agent 编排与恢复」
• 返回排行榜首页