OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini 在「生成项目周报」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-4o-mini
  • 用例名称:生成项目周报
  • 测试类型:xsct-a
  • 评测维度:PPT 与汇报生成

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:

这是我本周的记录:1. 完成了 OpenClaw 核心网关的压力测试,QPS 达到 5000。2. 修复了三个关于「read」工具读取超大文件时的内存溢出 Bug。3. 参加了社区技术分享会,介绍了插件扩展机制。请帮我整理成周报 PPT 提纲。

任务要求

AI 模型需要满足以下要求:

  1. 提纲必须包含明确的「页标题」
  2. 每页需列出至少 2 条「核心要点」
  3. 内容需涵盖压力测试、Bug 修复和社区分享三个维度
  4. 禁止生成长篇大论,保持页级结构清晰

评测结果

综合得分

该模型在此用例的得分为:73.5 分(满分 100 分),已通过

基础难度评测结果

  • 得分:73.5 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]] 以下是本周周报 PPT 提纲: ### 周报提纲 1. **封面** - 标题:本周工作总结 - 日期 2. **工作进展** - **OpenClaw 核心网关压力测试** - 测试结果:QPS 达到 5000 - 测试方法与工具介绍 3. **Bug 修复** - 修复内容: - 三个关于「read」工具的内存溢出 Bug - 修复过程及解决方案 4. **技术分享** - 参加社区技术分享会 - 主题:插件扩展机制 - 分享内容概述及反馈 5. **总结与展望** - 本周工作总结 - 下周工作计划 6. **Q&A** - 问题与讨论环节 请根据需要调整或补充具体内容!

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评:

【CLAUDE】模型生成的周报PPT提纲基本完成了任务目标,三个核心维度(压力测试、Bug修复、社区分享)均被覆盖,关键数据(QPS 5000、三个Bug、插件扩展机制)得到准确保留。结构上采用了标准PPT框架,逻辑清晰。主要不足在于每页核心要点展开不够充分,未能达到参考答案中每页2条以上实质性要点的深度,且加入了较多通用模板页(封面、Q&A等),使内容密度有所降低。总体而言是一份合格但略显浅薄的周报提纲。 【GEMINI】模型能够完成基本的结构化整理任务,但在执行约束条件(如每页要点数量)方面表现一般,且存在过度补充无关信息的问题。建议在后续任务中更严格地遵循指令约束,避免生成未提及的内容。 【KIMI】模型输出形成了基本的 PPT 框架,但未能严格遵循「页标题+核心要点」的格式要求,结构冗余且要点提炼不足。信息保留基本完整,但存在关键细节缺失和过度推断的问题。整体处于及格线边缘,结构化表达维度未达标。

进阶难度评测结果

  • 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:

以下是周报 PPT 的提纲,包括每页的标题和详细要点: ### 第1页:研发进展 - 完成 get_page_content 接口优化 - 响应速度提升 30% ### 第2页:用户反馈 - 收到 5 个关于 PPT 导出格式的改进建议 ### 第3页:未来规划 - 启动 OpenClawSlides 2.0 预研 如果您需要进一步的修改或添加内容,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】模型基本完成任务,准确读取并使用了工具返回的 stdout 数据,三板块结构合理、量化信息无遗漏。但整体输出过于简洁,要点扩展不足,页面标题缺乏专业感与表现力,与参考答案在内容深度和表达质量上存在明显差距。若能对原始记录进行适度推断和扩充,并优化标题措辞,整体质量将显著提升。 【GEMINI】模型能够准确抓取并整合工具返回的数据,但在 PPT 提纲的专业性呈现上表现平平。输出内容过于平铺直叙,缺乏 PPT 制作中必要的逻辑包装和要点提炼,仅达到了基础的记录整理水平。 【KIMI】模型完成了基础的信息提取和三段式结构划分,但存在明显的信息加工不足和专业度欠缺。主要问题包括:板块命名不准确(「市场反馈」变「用户反馈」)、标题缺乏专业包装、要点呈现过于简略、未体现对原始数据的深度理解和扩展。整体处于及格边缘,建议提升商务文档的结构化表达能力和信息增值处理能力。

困难难度评测结果

  • 得分:9.8 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:

我将读取「daily_notes.txt」以获取更多关于开发进展的信息,并整理这些内容以生成项目周报。

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评:

【CLAUDE】模型生成结果与参考答案差距极大。面对「现在呢?」这一明确的推进请求,模型仅给出了一个行动意图声明,未产出任何实质性内容。既没有利用已有的信息(issue_tracker.json 中的 Chrome 120 bug、Safari 冲突信息)来生成周报,也没有对异常情况(plugin_dev.log 缺失)进行任何分析或说明。整体表现极差,几乎未完成任务目标。 【GEMINI】该模型表现极差。在任务执行过程中,模型未能利用已获取的上下文信息(如已读取的 issue_tracker.json 内容),而是陷入了重复的意图表达。对于任务要求的「整理周报」核心目标,模型完全没有产出,未能体现出任何处理冲突信息或异常恢复的智能水平。 【KIMI】该模型生成结果严重不合格。面对「plugin_dev.log」读取失败的异常场景,模型仅停留在口头计划阶段,未实际执行替代方案(读取daily_notes.txt)。更关键的是,模型完全忽略了用户对话中已提供的全部关键信息(Firefox完成、Chrome 120故障、Safari冲突),未生成任何周报内容,也未体现冲突识别与标注。整体表现为典型的「幻觉式回应」——看似在回应,实则未处理任何实际信息,属于严重的任务失败。

相关链接

您可以通过以下链接查看更多相关内容:

加载中...