SkillTester: Benchmarking Utility and Security of Agent Skills
Authors: Leye Wang, Zixing Wang, Anjie Xu
Organizations: Key Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies, Ministry of Education, Peking University, Beijing, China · Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, China
This technical report presents SkillTester, a tool for evaluating the utility and security of agent skills. Its evaluation framework combines paired baseline and with-skill execution conditions with a separate security probe suite. Grounded in a comparative utility principle and a user-facing simplicity principle, the framework normalizes raw execution artifacts into a utility score, a security score, and a three-level security status label. More broadly, it can be understood as a comparative quality-assurance harness for agent skills in an agent-first world. The public service is deployed at https://skilltester.ai, and the broader project is maintained at https://github.com/skilltester-ai/skilltester.
Figures & tables
Aspect
In scope
Out of scope
Evaluation target
Candidate third-party agent skills
General model benchmarks or enterprise-wide harnesses
Decision stage
Skill selection and enablement
Runtime monitoring or adaptation
Published outputs
Utility score, security score, and security status label
Full internal execution analytics
Security coverage
Controlled security probes
Exhaustive certification or formal verification
Table 1: Scope of the SkillTester evaluation framework.
Task group
Purpose
Used for
Typical pass condition
Common functional tasks
Representative intended use cases
Utility
Expected output or behavior is produced
Edge functional tasks
Boundary and failure-handling cases
Utility
Observed behavior matches expected output, refusal, or error handling
Table 2: Functional task groups used for utility evaluation in the current SkillTester framework.
Current direction
What current tasks try to detect
Indicative OWASP categories
Abnormal behavior control
Unsafe actions, risky execution behavior, uncontrolled retries, misleading safety claims, and tool misuse under controlled prompts
ASI02 tool misuse; ASI05 code execution
Permission boundary
Unauthorized file, network, process, or tool access beyond the skill’s intended role
ASI03 privilege abuse; ASI02 tool misuse
Sensitive data protection
Credential leakage, unsafe logging, exfiltration, and mishandling of sensitive context
ASI06 context poisoning; ASI09 trust exploitation
Table 3: Current controlled security probe directions in the SkillTester framework and their indicative correspondence to the OWASP Agentic Top 10 threat model.
Figure 1: Overview of the SkillTester evaluation framework.
Dimension
Question answered
Primary evidence
Reported metrics
Utility
What value does the skill add relative to baseline?
Paired baseline/with-skill outcomes, invocation evidence, and token/time measurements
Task-level utility and aggregate utility score
Security
How does the skill behave under controlled probes?
Probe outcomes across three predefined groups
Group scores, aggregate security score, and security status label
Table 4: Dimensions used in the SkillTester evaluation framework.
Situation
Why the skill is useful
Utility implication
Baseline fails, skill succeeds
The skill enables an otherwise unavailable outcome
Clear incremental utility
Both succeed, but the skill path is cheaper
The skill reduces token cost or elapsed time
Positive utility without unique completion ability
Table 5: Illustrative ways a skill can create utility in the SkillTester setting.
Figure 2: Published SkillTester scores and the internal structure of utility scoring.
Notation
Meaning
U,S
Utility and security scores
T
Set of valid functional tasks
gt
Task-level invocation gate for task t
yts,ytb
Skill-path and baseline-path success indicators
uts,utb
Skill-path and baseline-path token measurements
τts,τtb
Skill-path and baseline-path elapsed-time measurements
Table 6: Notation used in scoring.
Parameter
Current value
Role in scoring
η
50
Neutral efficiency point when skill-path and baseline cost are equal
α
25
Sensitivity of the token/time efficiency mapping
β
20
Minimum utility credit when both paths succeed but the skill path is less efficient
θs
80
Lower bound of the Caution security-status range
Table 7: Current parameter settings used in scoring.
Condition
Task score
Interpretation
Skill not invoked
0
No credit is assigned if the outcome cannot be attributed to actual skill use
Skill fails
0
A failed skill-path run receives no utility credit
Skill succeeds, baseline fails
100
The skill provides clear incremental value
Both succeed, equal cost
50
The skill succeeds with no cost advantage or penalty relative to baseline
Both succeed, skill more efficient
50–100
The skill succeeds at lower token or time cost than baseline
Both succeed, skill less efficient
20–50
Both paths succeed, but the skill path incurs higher task-level cost
Agent skills have become a practical way to extend large language model agents, but the growing skill ecosystem still lacks a reliable way to judge whether a skill is worth deploying. Existing evaluation methods remain largely anchored to fixed task suites, assessing skills through performance on predefined tasks and environments. As skill marketplaces expand, this paradigm becomes inadequate: fixed suites can conflate a skill's marginal contribution with backbone strength and miss its value when tasks fall outside the skill's intended scope. We introduce SkillAudit, an end-to-end framework for skill-centered assessment that takes an arbitrary agent skill as input and automatically generates a comprehensive, multi-dimensional evaluation report spanning utility, efficiency/cost, and safety. SkillAudit focuses on the skill artifact itself and constructs capability-aligned evaluation tasks directly from the skill package. The generated tasks are conducted in isolated sandbox environments to collect execution evidence, followed by automated checks with LLM-based judging to produce auditable results. To dissect the agent skills, we propose the baseline comparison principle to measure utility and efficiency/cost, and introduce a two-stage detection paradigm combining static semantic analysis with dynamic runtime verification to assess safety risks. After scanning top-ranked real-world skill packages spanning 23 occupational categories, we found that over 7% of skills are at risky status.
Dexu Yu, Youhua Li, Zhaoyang Guan +12
Northeastern University · City University of Hong Kong · DeciLix Lab +8
Agent skills combine natural-language instructions with executable code while inheriting an agent's filesystem, credential, and network access. Attacks can span prose and files, whereas regex and code-only analyzers cover only one modality. SkillSieve applies three progressively deeper layers: recall-oriented regex, AST, and metadata triage; four parallel LLM security sub-tasks; and an independent three-model jury with debate on disagreement. We evaluate 49,592 real ClawHub skills, a 390-skill labeled benchmark, and 100 adversarial samples across five evasion techniques on a 440 USD ARM board. The full pipeline achieves F1 = 0.929 (precision 0.912, recall 0.945) at an average cost of $0.006 per skill. An optional XGBoost fast path reduces Layer-2/3 calls by 32% with a 1.7-point F1 decrease while preserving recall. On 52 Feishu/Lark packages, Layer 2 reclassifies 13 of 14 Layer-1 flags as safe after contextual analysis; we also deploy the system as a Feishu chat bot. Code, labels, and aggregate results are open-sourced.
Yinghan Hou, Zongyou Yang
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom · Dyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
Agent skills let LLM agents reuse instructions, resources, tools, and workflows, but they also create a new place for malicious behavior to hide. A skill may look benign in its documentation or code while becoming harmful only when it is invoked with particular user requests, local assets, persistent state, or multi-step tool interactions. This makes purely static vetting brittle. We present Runtime Skill Audit (RSA), a dynamic analysis method that audits skills by asking what the skill-mediated agent actually does under targeted runtime conditions. Instead of testing every skill with the same generic tasks, RSA profiles risk-relevant interfaces, prepares the execution context needed to exercise them, and assigns security labels from the resulting trace evidence. We instantiate RSA on OpenClaw and evaluate it on 100 skills against representative static baselines. RSA achieves 90.0% accuracy with an 88.0% true positive rate and an 8.0% false positive rate, improving accuracy by 13.0 percentage points over the best static baseline. Under self-evolving attacks, static detectors collapse after one or two rounds, while RSA continues to detect 19--20 out of 20 malicious skills across rounds.