Auto-Policy, not Auto-Skill: Compiled Agent Skills for the Physical World

Agentic systems increasingly rely on reusable procedural capabilities, a.k.a., agentic skills, to execute long-horizon workflows reliably. These capabilities are callable modules that package procedural knowledge with explicit applicability conditions, execution policies, termination criteria, and reusable interfaces. Unlike one-off plans or atomic tool calls, skills operate (and often do well) across tasks. This paper maps the skill layer across the full lifecycle (discovery, practice, distillation, storage, composition, evaluation, and update) and introduces two complementary taxonomies. The first is a system-level set of seven design patterns capturing how skills are packaged and executed in practice, from metadata-driven progressive disclosure and executable code skills to self-evolving libraries and marketplace distribution. The second is an orthogonal \textbf{representation $\times$ scope} taxonomy describing what skills are (natural language, code, policy, hybrid) and what environments they operate over (web, OS, software engineering, robotics). We analyze the security and governance implications of skill-based agents, covering supply-chain risks, prompt injection via skill payloads, and trust-tiered execution, grounded by a case study of the ClawHavoc campaign in which nearly 1{,}200 malicious skills infiltrated a major agent marketplace, exfiltrating API keys, cryptocurrency wallets, and browser credentials at scale. We further survey deterministic evaluation approaches, anchored by recent benchmark evidence that curated skills can substantially improve agent success rates while self-generated skills may degrade them. We conclude with open challenges toward robust, verifiable, and certifiable skills for real-world autonomous agents.

Agent Skills allow LLM agents to combine reusable capabilities, but checking each Skill in isolation cannot rule out policy violations when they are composed. We term such failures Conflict of Skills (CoS): artifacts or assessment signals produced for one purpose may be reused downstream without preserving the restrictions or authorization needed for their new use. Using controlled executions of publicly available Skills and matched single-Skill controls, we identify four recurring mechanisms behind CoS. Building on these findings, we introduce the Conflict of Skills Attack (CoSA), which adds locally admitted Skills to an existing pool to supply missing business operations (capability supplementation) or reshape artifact exchange, decision reuse, and target/action bindings (relationship reshaping). CoSA leaves existing Skills and runtime permissions unchanged. To evaluate this threat under autonomous Skill selection, we introduce CoSA-Bench, built from real-world Skills and controlled services, with 288 tasks across recruiting, finance, IT, and business, covering data leakage, unauthorized state modification, and unsafe execution. Across five LLMs and three agent harnesses, additions capped at 5% of each original pool raise the policy-violation rate from 35.02% to 58.45%, an increase of 23.43 percentage points. Trace analysis links compliant-to-violating transitions to cross-Skill dependencies involving the additions. Finally, we develop a lightweight harness-level guard that checks information flow and authorization before consequential actions. On OpenClaw recruiting tasks across five models, the guard reduces violations from 65.28% to 6.67%, while policy-compliant task completion on matched benign controls changes from 66.67% to 65.00%.

LLM-based agents leverage third-party skills to extend their capabilities in open-world scenarios. However, third-party skills can introduce extra security vulnerabilities, as seemingly harmless skills can contain latent safety risks that only emerge during actual execution. In this work, we conduct a systematic investigation into how well current agent systems recognize and avoid such risks. To support quantitative and qualitative evaluation, we construct OpenSkillRisk, a dedicated safety benchmark containing 263 risky skills collected from public skill marketplaces. We classify these skills into seven categories based on their threat types and pair each skill with a standardized user task and a corresponding sandbox for controlled evaluation. Distinct from prior benchmarks, OpenSkillRisk not only covers more realistic and diverse unsafe scenarios, but also provides a fine-grained analysis to diagnose the behavioral patterns of agents in such scenarios. We conduct comprehensive experiments covering three mainstream CLI agent frameworks and thirteen state-of-the-art LLMs. Experimental results show that no tested system handles risky skills reliably: even the safest configurations still execute unsafe actions in about 17% of cases. Context-dependent and system-level risks are especially difficult for current agent systems to avoid. Our behavioral analysis reveals three recurring failure patterns: agents may fail to recognize the risk, recognize it but fail to intervene before acting, or follow skill instructions beyond the user's intended scope. These findings highlight the need to improve both risk reasoning in LLMs and execution control in agent frameworks.