AI-accelerated End-to-End Framework for Rapid Professional Upskilling

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.

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.

Artificial intelligence is changing the task composition of computing work faster than curricula and training typically adapt. This is a curriculum-framework paper, grounded in a structured narrative review of labor-market and software-engineering evidence and illustrated through an exploratory pilot course: the review supports the framework, and the pilot illustrates it rather than serving as primary evidence. The central claim is that near-term change is task reallocation rather than full replacement: routine implementation is increasingly automated while verification, systems thinking, security, and the ability to supervise and orchestrate AI (keeping a human in the loop) gain value. We organize the response as a capability-assurance framework anchored by a Capability Ladder: a five-level progression (trigger, automation, workflow, AI agent, agent team) that classifies the operational autonomy of AI-augmented work and the human supervision it requires. We map the ladder to course-level updates, workload-aware assessment, and stackable workforce credentials, and illustrate it through a two-semester pilot of a team-based, no-code course enrolling computing and business students. We argue for targeted modernization around durable capabilities rather than wholesale curriculum replacement, and we are explicit about evidence limits: labor signals are confounded by non-AI forces, industry reports are directional, and the pilot is exploratory.