What Is a Skill Worth? Structure-Aware Shapley Valuation of Agent Skills

Agent skills are crucial external instructions that enable language agents to execute long procedural tasks such as coding or document processing. Existing agent skills are primarily created through human manual crafting or agent execution traces, with limited understanding of how each step contributes to overall skill performance on specific tasks; i.e., there remains an open problem in quantifying the contribution of individual steps within an agent skill. To address this issue, we first model skill-step attribution as a Shapley value-based contribution estimation problem, and then propose SkillShapley, a step-level attribution framework for agent skills. Notably, SkillShapley operates in two phases, motivated by key empirical insights, i.e., discretized benchmark rewards that create sharp performance cliffs, and step interactions that are largely additive rather than synergistic. Specifically, it first identifies informative coalitional regions, and then adaptively samples new coalitions that can yield reusable marginal evidence. Experiments on skills from the widely adopted SkillsBench demonstrate that our SkillShapley can effectively and efficiently identify high- or low-value skill steps, providing several key takeaways for agent skill creation.

Agent skills provide reusable procedural knowledge that helps agents solve specialized tasks. As their use expands, evaluating skill quality becomes increasingly important. Existing evaluations often measure skill quality by testing whether a skill improves performance on specific downstream tasks. However, a reusable skill may apply to multiple task scenarios. Downstream evaluation mainly reflects the compatibility between a skill and the evaluated task, provides only a partial view of skill quality, and does not identify which aspect of the skill should be improved. We find that general properties of the \texttt{SKILL.md} document play an important role in skill quality. To evaluate these properties, we propose \textbf{SkillEval}, an interpretable framework for document-level skill evaluation. SkillEval evaluates each property using a fixed and inspectable scoring direction, producing interpretable scores. It further measures and reduces the influence of unrelated document features, such as length and formatting, so that each score captures its intended semantic property more specifically. Specifically, SkillEval learns an interpretable direction for each quality property from controlled positive--negative skill pairs in the hidden representation space of the model, and scores a new skill by projecting its representation onto these fixed directions. We use SkillEval to evaluate skills in controlled quality tests and show that SkillEval reliably distinguishes skills of different quality. In addition, SkillEval scores closely reflect downstream task performance, providing an early indication of whether a skill is likely to help an agent complete a task. We further explore SkillEval for diagnosing weaknesses in skill documents and guiding targeted revisions. The revised skills improve the targeted properties and achieve higher pass rates on downstream tasks.

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.