Optimal Skill Selection for LLM Agents with Provable Bicriteria Guarantees

Reusable agent skills are emerging as a service-oriented capability layer for Large Language Model (LLM) agents. Unlike plain retrieval items, a skill exposes functional capabilities, input-output assumptions, tool dependencies, context cost, and risk metadata. Selecting skills is particularly challenging for small LLM agents, which can load only a few capability units under restricted context, tool availability, and risk tolerance. Existing fixed Top-k methods rank skills by textual relevance and overlook requirement satisfaction, deliverability, and operational constraints. We present SkillSelect-Serve, a QoS-aware, budget-constrained Skill Service recommendation framework. Raw skills are profiled as structured Skill Services, the task is converted into a structured requirement object, and candidates discovered from a large-scale registry are ranked by a calibrated task-conditioned suitability estimator and packed by a constrained projection enforcing token-budget, aggregated-risk, and tool-availability constraints, using only deployment-observable features. On a registry of 35,353 skills with pooled multi-positive relevance judgments verified by two independent assessors, the unconstrained top-5 recommendation fits a realistic 4,000-token context for only 9.1% of tasks; the constrained projection restores 100% deliverability at a cost of only 1.14 points of hit rate, outperforming retrieve-and-rerank, budget truncation, and diversity-based selection under identical budgets. The same mechanism halves delivered risk exposure and eliminates the 44-81% tool-violation rates of tool-agnostic recommendation. At an identical three-service budget, hit rate improves from 0.8864 to 0.9091 over fixed Top-3 retrieval. The results support managing reusable agent skills as discoverable, comparable, and constraint-aware service units instead of plain retrievable documents.

LLM agents now draw on growing skill libraries to handle complex tasks. However, injecting more skills does not always improve task completion and can even degrade it. Existing methods still treat skill injection as a static step, selecting skills with fixed criteria, fixing the budget in advance, and leaving descriptions unchanged. We argue that this static treatment can undermine the utility of skills, because which skills are exposed, how many are included, and how they are presented all affect downstream performance. We propose SkillsInjector, a two-stage adaptive method that jointly addresses these decisions. First, a context planner learns execution-grounded skill preferences and admits an adaptive number of skills for each task. A set-aware renderer then tailors how selected descriptions are presented relative to their co-injected neighbors. Across tau2-bench, SkillsBench, and ALFWorld, SkillsInjector achieves the highest score, improving over the strongest baseline by 3.9, 6.1, and 7.3 percentage points, respectively. Ablation studies show that skill selection, adaptive budgeting, and set-aware rendering each contribute to the gain. These results show that skill-augmented agents benefit from optimizing the injected context itself. Code will be released upon publication

Agent skill evolution seeks to improve reusable procedural guidance for large language model (LLM) agents through iterative revision. Existing methods base each revision mainly on execution trajectories or feedback, leaving recurring behavioral requirements across tasks implicit and tying revision to the behavior of the current skill. We introduce SkillFocus, which decomposes recurring task requirements into a capability space that remains fixed as the skill evolves, separating what tasks require from how the current skill behaves. SkillFocus maps current task outcomes to this space to identify the capability that leaves the most tasks unresolved, then uses that capability to determine what to revise and which evidence to use. Across four benchmarks spanning heterogeneous tasks, SkillFocus achieves the best held-out accuracy on all four, outperforming the strongest competing result by 5.7 points on average while using 24% fewer evolution tokens on average than the closest iterative baseline. Controlled studies further show that capabilities derived from recurring task requirements outperform task-semantic and execution-derived alternatives, while randomizing task--capability assignments reduces final accuracy by up to 20.2 points. Matching evidence to the selected capability increases candidate gain by 4.4 points under prioritized revision.