More Skills, Worse Agents? Skill Shadowing Degrades Performance When Expanding Skill Libraries

As agent systems scale, skills accumulate into large reusable libraries, yet their scaling laws remain poorly understood. Across 15 frontier LLMs, 1,141 real-world skills, and over 3M routing or execution decisions, we identify two coupled laws. Routing law: single-step routing accuracy decays logarithmically with library size ($R^2{>}0.97$ for all models), with errors progressing from local skill competition to cross-family drift and capture by overly general "black-hole skills". Execution law: before state realization, joint routing is approximately multiplicative, whereas correct execution can improve difficult downstream decisions by about $4{\times}$. A single parameter, the routing logarithmic decay slope $b$, couples the two laws: routing-side fits predict execution-side rescue across models, showing that the same library property controls both pre-execution collapse and downstream recoverability. The laws are actionable: law-guided optimization raises held-out routing accuracy from 71.3% to 91.7%, reduces hijack from 22.4% to 4.1%, and transfers directionally to downstream ClawBench and ClawMark execution settings, improving mean pass rate from 49.3% to 61.6% on ClawBench and from 28.4% to 34.5% on ClawMark. These results show that agent performance depends not only on model capability, but also on the structure, granularity, and exposure policy of the skill library.

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.

LLM agents can improve without weight updates by accumulating natural-language skills from experience, but current systems entrust every decision about which skills to keep and how to apply them to LLM judgment alone. We argue that this conflates two distinct roles: generating a skill from experience is a creative act that judgment handles well, while deciding whether that skill actually helps requires empirical evidence across many tasks. Measuring per-skill causal contributions via randomized masking, we find that skill libraries exhibit pervasive causal heterogeneity: individual skills routinely help on some task types while hurting on others, yet their opposing effects cancel in aggregate, making them invisible to global curation methods. We propose ASSAY, a framework that separates generation from curation: it computes a per-skill causal attribution on a small development set, restructures the library offline, and suppresses skills with negative predicted effect for each test task. Across seven base models spanning four providers and two benchmarks (AppWorld and tau-bench), ASSAY consistently improves over prior skill-curation approaches. On AppWorld's hardest split, DeepSeek-V3 achieves 69.3% task-goal completion (47.4% relative improvement), a new state of the art among all published methods including weight-tuned approaches. On tau-bench retail, GPT-4.1 improves by 8.7% relative, advancing past o4-mini, o1, and GPT-4.5 on the public leaderboard without any weight modification. Ablation traces the dominant gain to per-task masking, confirming that the bottleneck is matching skills to tasks at inference time, not removing bad skills globally. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/assay.