Authors: Xiaolin Zhou, Jinbo Liu, Li Li, Ryan A. Rossi, Xiyang Hu
Organizations: Arizona State University · University of Southern California · Adobe Research
Abstract
Large Language Model agents are increasingly augmented with agent skills. Current evaluation methods for skills remain limited. Most deployed benchmarks report only pass rate before and after a skill is attached, treating the skill as a black box change to agent behavior. We introduce Counterfactual Trace Auditing (CTA), a framework for measuring how a skill changes agent behavior. CTA pairs each with skill agent trace with a without skill counterpart on the same task, segments both traces into goal directed phases, aligns the phases, and emits structured Skill Influence Pattern (SIP) annotations. These annotations describe the behavioral effect of a skill rather than only its task outcome. We instantiate CTA on SWE-Skills-Bench with Claude across 49 software engineering tasks. The resulting audit reveals a clear evaluation gap. Pass rate changes by only +0.3 percentage points on average, suggesting little aggregate effect. Yet CTA identifies 522 SIP instances across the same paired traces, showing that the skills substantially reshape agent behavior even when pass rate is nearly unchanged. The audit also separates several recurring effects that pass rate cannot detect, including literal template copying, off task artifact creation, excess planning, and task recovery. Three findings emerge. First, high baseline tasks contain most of the observed skill effects, although their pass rate is already saturated and therefore cannot reflect those effects. Second, tasks with moderate baseline performance show the most recoverable gain, but often at substantially higher token cost. Third, the dominant SIP type can be identified by baseline bucket: surface anchoring is most common on ceiling tasks and edge-case prompting is most common on mid-range and floor tasks. These regularities turn informal failure mode observations into reproducible behavioral measurements.
Agent skills encode reusable procedural knowledge for large language model (LLM) agents, and existing benchmarks show that such skills can improve task-level performance. However, a task outcome does not reveal which parts of a reusable skill were exercised, nor whether the agent followed the relevant skill instructions when those parts were exercised. This gap makes it unclear whether a skill has been adequately tested, or whether observed task failures provide actionable evidence for improving agent skill effectiveness. To fill this gap, we introduce skill coverage, a trajectory-based test-adequacy metric for reusable agent skills. Our framework extracts skill behavior constraints from each skill, translating natural-language skill instructions into semi-structured constraints that specify the expected agent behavior under particular conditions. It then determines whether each constraint is covered by an agent trajectory and, for covered constraints, assigns a Pass or Fail verdict according to the agent behavior. We apply this framework to SkillsBench. The results show that agent trajectories on the benchmark leaderboard cover only 38.66 to 45.51% of the extracted skill behavior constraints on average. We then use Fail verdicts to strengthen the corresponding skill content only by emphasizing the original instructions that the agent failed to follow, and run the same tasks with the strengthened skills. This emphasis yields an average 16.0% recovery rate of the failed tasks across the five agent-model rows. These results show that skill coverage is both a test-adequacy metric and a fine-grained signal for observing skill-use behavior. In failed tasks, failed constraint labels provide actionable evidence for improving agent skill effectiveness. A project website accompanies the paper.
Agent skills are the de facto mechanism for extending LLM agents with reusable guidance. A skill can shape the agent's task execution, including planning, tool use, problem-solving, and validation. Prior work reported mixed results of agent skills: some skills improve task success rates, while others have no effect, increase token use and execution time, and even reduce success rates. This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of skill-induced agent failures by attributing task failures and cost regressions to specific loaded skills. We introduce a differential analysis framework that attributes a failure or regression to a skill by comparing a target skill-guided run against a no-skill or semantically matched skill reference run that solves the same task, or solves it more cheaply. We instantiate this framework on SkillsBench and SWE-Skills-Bench, yielding 307 skill-induced failures, including 125 functional failures and 182 efficiency regressions. We also build SkillTriage, a taxonomy-guided attribution tool that normalizes paired cases, extracts differential evidence, and produces triage reports. Our major findings include: (1) Skill induced functional failures are rarely caused by obviously irrelevant skills; instead, seemingly relevant skills often make the agent incorrectly implement or omit task-required implementation elements. (2) Skill-induced efficiency regressions are not explained by prompt length alone. (3) The largest sources within Excessive Procedure are excessive verification and heavy implementation pipelines, contributing 67 and 30 cases, respectively. This shows that skills often turn validation checklists and construction recipes into mandatory work. Based on our findings, we propose research topics and tooling improvements for safer and more cost-aware skill reuse.
Agent skills are structured procedural packages that guide frozen LLM agents in specialized workflows. Skills rarely remain sufficient after deployment: edge cases, API changes, and deployment constraints become visible only through use, making skill evolution a practical necessity. Existing methods depend on privileged feedback such as held-out validation scores, hidden test outcomes, or environment rewards -- signals often unavailable when a practitioner has only a task description and workspace data. We introduce SkillAudit, a framework for evolving agent skills without ground-truth feedback. The key idea is paired trajectory auditing: at each iteration, the same task is executed with and without the candidate skill, isolating how the skill changes agent behavior without external labels. To turn behavioral differences into edit guidance, SkillAudit uses Process-Aligned Contrastive Evaluation (PACE), a cluster of evaluators that maps trajectory divergences to diagnostic signals linked to specific passages in the skill document. A structural verifier, compiled once from the task specification and then fixed, checks task constraints and rolls back harmful updates. SkillAudit routes edits through two pipelines: Refine removes noisy or irrelevant guidance from broadly useful skills, while Repair replaces passages that conflict with the task. Across 89 containerized tasks spanning 8 professional domains, SkillAudit achieves 73.9% average task reward, outperforming an agent without skills (40.9%) and the static expert skill (56.7%). These gains are obtained without accessing hidden tests, reference solutions, or external scoring functions during evolution.