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.
Skill documents, structured natural-language instructions that guide Large Language Model (LLM) agents, are critical to modern agent frameworks, yet LLMs struggle to write skills that actually work. On SkillsBench, human-authored skills improve pass rates by 16.2 percentage points, while LLM-authored skills provide no measurable gain. We introduce SkillAxe, a fully unsupervised framework that enables LLMs to iteratively diagnose and refine their own skills. SkillAxe decomposes skill quality into four interpretable dimensions (quality impact, trigger precision, instruction compliance with fault attribution, and solution-path coverage), producing structured improvement briefs that require no ground-truth labels, test suites, or environment rewards. On SkillsBench, SkillAxe improves pass rates by 28% relative over unimproved LLM skills and closes 47--67% of the gap to human-authored skills. We validate the approach as a continuous improvement engine in the wild on SpreadsheetBench, where a SkillAxe-built skill library learns from past agent trajectories and raises pass rate from 16.0% to 52.0% using only 22 skills.
Agent skills -- structured, reusable knowledge artifacts that augment LLM agent capabilities -- have been rapidly adopted in industry, yet their cross-domain impact and use across commercial and open-source models remain under-studied, and no reusable methodology exists for evaluating an individual skill. In this work, we present an evaluation framework that lets a skill author construct realistic tasks to rigorously assess the aspects of a skill that matter most to them, and that estimates skill utility by solving those tasks. Further, we apply our evaluation approach at scale to 500 real-world skills, generating 1,000 tasks derived from the skills' content, along with instruction-following and goal-completion scoring rubrics. Using these metrics, we evaluate how 19 agent-model configurations, both proprietary and open-source, perform on the tasks. Our results show that models vary widely in how closely they adhere to the instructions encoded in skills, leading to substantial differences in their performance gains. Furthermore, we show that access to a skill significantly changes model behavior compared to the no-skill setup, providing an essential mechanism for encoding opinionated workflows into LLM agents. We release our evaluation dataset to support future work on agent skills.
Maksim Shaposhnikov, Nicolas Fortuin, Simon Stipcich +3
Skills, i.e., structured workflow instructions distilled for large language models (LLMs), are becoming an increasingly important mechanism for improving agent performance on real-world downstream tasks. However, as the open-source skill ecosystem rapidly expands, it remains unclear how different models and agent frameworks interact with skills, how to evaluate skill quality, and how users should select skills under practical cost-performance trade-offs. In this paper, we present \textsc{OpenSkillEval}, an automatic evaluation framework for both skill-augmented agent systems and the skills themselves. Instead of relying on static benchmarks, \textsc{OpenSkillEval} automatically constructs realistic task instances from evolving real-world artifacts across five categories of downstream applications: presentation generation, front-end web design, poster generation, data visualization, and report generation. It further collects and organizes community-contributed skills for controlled comparison under unified task settings. Using more than 600 dynamically generated task instances and 30 open-source skills, we conduct a systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art models and agent frameworks. Our results show that skill availability does not guarantee effective skill usage, that the benefit of skill augmentation depends strongly on both the underlying model and the agent framework, and that many publicly popular skills do not consistently outperform base agents without skills. These findings highlight the need for dynamic, task-grounded evaluation and provide practical insights into the design, selection, and deployment of skills for LLM agents. Additional cases and benchmark resources are available on the project website: https://yingjiahao14.github.io/OpenSkillEval-Web/.