Abstract
Large Language Model-powered agents are increasingly used in the workplace via human-artificial intelligence (AI) collaboration. In this new era of work, it is important to understand the kinds of prompting traits that contribute to task success. Moreover, we need to uncover key skills required for modern professionals and inform educators on how to foster these skills among students. Existing guidelines for human-AI collaboration are built from either top-down theory or context-specific observations of human-AI interactions. However, since LLM capabilities are rapidly improving, theory may not be able to explain emerging interaction patterns, and empirical guidelines may become obsolete quickly. In this work, we explore an automated, data-driven approach to uncover patterns, which we term traits, of effective human-AI interaction that are aligned with task outcomes. We propose Principal Trait Analysis, a Principal Component Analysis-inspired algorithm for deriving common traits from patterns in LLM conversations. Our algorithm uses LLM-based processing stages to analyze corpora of human-AI collaborative session traces, deriving common traits across the dataset and scoring each human collaborator's usage style by each trait. The approach also allows domain expertise to be injected during trait discovery and selects the most distinguishing traits to be those that exhibit the highest variance across collaborators. We evaluate PTA on two human-AI collaborative coding datasets, an educational setting (students working with an AI tutor) and a professional setting (developers working with an AI coding agent). We find that PTA-derived traits are significant in explaining collaborator behavior across both settings and can help predict task outcomes. However, whether traits qualify as skills remains to be seen, due to inconclusive results on generalizability and how user traits change over time.
Explore similar work
Apr 20, 2026cs.HC
AI agents are reshaping the workspace, leading to drastic change of how humans work. Despite the considerable potential of human-agent collaboration both in preserving human agency and generating economic value, this paradigm remains largely absent from occupational task evaluation, hindered by the difficulty of gathering real human data and accounting for inter-human variability. We introduce CollabSkill, a framework for evaluating human-agent collaboration on real-world occupational tasks. CollabSkill pairs real human workers with AI agents on tasks matched to their occupational background, collecting data that capture the complexity of economically valuable tasks and the usage patterns of real workers. To account for inter-human variability, CollabSkill employs a Bayesian skill rating system to disentangle and quantify the skill contributions of both humans and AI agents. Drawing on over 1,500 prompts from 386 working sessions contributed by 93 human workers, our analysis yields insights on two fronts: on the agent side, rankings on CollabSkill diverge meaningfully from those of existing fully autonomous benchmarks where Codex leads, with Claude Code ranking first; on the human side, CollabSkill reveals that practical experience emerges as the primary driver of collaboration skill, with hands-on collaboration meaningfully shifting workers' AI literacy. Together, we hope CollabSkill enables the community to invest in systematic evaluation of human-agent collaboration and spurs development efforts aimed at building AI agents that genuinely augment human workers.
Yijia Shao, Zora Zhiruo Wang, Neel Ahuja +3
Aug 10, 2026cs.SE
Large language model (LLM)-powered agents have rapidly evolved from code-completion tools into solvers of complex software engineering tasks. As developers collaborate with coding agents over time, their preferences emerge through repeated interactions and can be used to adapt agent behavior to better meet individual developers' needs. Capturing and reusing these preferences may reduce repeated corrections and improve developer-agent collaboration. Agent skills provide a lightweight mechanism for transferring experience without modifying model parameters. However, existing work primarily focuses on task-specific skills, and it remains unclear whether developer-specific skills distilled from interaction histories can generalize to future tasks. We propose a framework for extracting reusable developer preferences from interaction traces. It first generates personalized skills through rule-based bootstrapping and evidence-grounded refinement, and then evaluates them using a reproducible replay framework with an interactive, trajectory-conditioned LLM-based human developer simulator. We conduct an experiment on 206 real-world developer-agent sessions from 13 developers and compare personalized skills against no-skill, generic-skill, and other-user-skill baselines. Personalized skills provide small and inconsistent improvements over the no-skill baseline, whereas generic skills pooled across developers achieve the largest and most consistent gains. Further analysis suggests that personalized skills become more effective when developer preferences appear frequently, particularly when their histories contain multiple examples relevant to future tasks. These findings provide empirical insights into when developer-specific personalization is effective and demonstrate that broadly transferable procedural knowledge can be more robust than developer-specific preference signals.
Shuyan Huang, Kai Du, Andrew Lan
May 12, 2026cs.AI
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.
Xiaolin Zhou, Jinbo Liu, Li Li +2