When Does a Skill Add Value? Task-Conditional Gain Prediction for Selective Skill Use

Long-running agents accumulate reusable Skills, but a Skill that is semantically relevant to a task is not necessarily worth loading in the current state. We study the applicability question that arises once a candidate Skill is known: should it be loaded in the current state? We propose SkillApt, which uses matched WITH/WITHOUT Skill executions on the same task state as persistent evidence, estimates the conditional marginal utility of the Skill, and chooses LOAD or ABSTAIN accordingly. The base model, agent architecture, and Skill contents stay fixed; only the external deployment policy changes. We call this constrained setting strategy-level recursive self-improvement (Strategy-Level RSI). On 20 Skills and 160 held-out states, as paired evidence accumulates, SkillApt's task success rises from 81.9% under a cold start to 91.3%, matching a strong zero-shot LLM controller; yet SkillApt activates Skills on only 26.3% of states, versus 98.8% for the zero-shot controller. A hard-candidate study shows that non-optimal Skills mostly leave correctness unchanged while raising execution cost, and occasionally cause correctness harm. An ablation shows that a history recording only WITH success makes the policy load almost everywhere, whereas paired evidence substantially improves selectivity. These results indicate that relevance is not applicability: the main effect of execution evidence is not to make the model stronger but to change how existing Skills are deployed, moving the system from near-always loading to selective reuse.

Skills have emerged as a practical and effective approach for enhancing LLM agents at inference time through structured packages of knowledge. However, existing evaluations largely measure whether skills improve aggregated task success, leaving a more fundamental question underexplored: When do skills help, why do they work, and where do they fail? Through controlled experiments across various benchmarks, agent harnesses and LLMs, we isolate the effects of representation, outcome annotation, retrieval difficulty, and cross-framework robustness of skills. To further answer this question, we design a contrastive study that combines controlled quantitative experiments with paired trajectory analysis. We normalize 8,135 trial records from controlled experiments and retain 238 valid unique labels from 240 open-coded records. We consolidate these observations into a taxonomy of three high-level categories and twelve skill-use modes: skills work when noisy trajectories become procedural anchors that stabilize execution. Skills improve over Workflow Memory by 6.06 points in matched comparisons. Procedural anchoring accounts for 65.7% of skill cases, versus 4.5% for explicit knowledge injection, showing that skills stabilize action rather than inject missing facts. Retrieval is a separate bottleneck: as pools grow from 5 to 100, actual-use precision falls from 29.6% to 3.3%. Confusable distractors impair offline identification, yet downstream success remains stable; exact ground-truth invocation is neither sufficient nor necessary. Skills fail under brittle assumptions, incompatible contexts, or insufficient adaptation. These findings move evaluation beyond aggregate success rates and guide reliable self-evolving agents.

Agent skills encode reusable procedural knowledge for large language model (LLM) agents, and existing benchmarks show that such skills can improve task-level performance. However, a task outcome does not reveal which parts of a reusable skill were exercised, nor whether the agent followed the relevant skill instructions when those parts were exercised. This gap makes it unclear whether a skill has been adequately tested, or whether observed task failures provide actionable evidence for improving agent skill effectiveness. To fill this gap, we introduce skill coverage, a trajectory-based test-adequacy metric for reusable agent skills. Our framework extracts skill behavior constraints from each skill, translating natural-language skill instructions into semi-structured constraints that specify the expected agent behavior under particular conditions. It then determines whether each constraint is covered by an agent trajectory and, for covered constraints, assigns a Pass or Fail verdict according to the agent behavior. We apply this framework to SkillsBench. The results show that agent trajectories on the benchmark leaderboard cover only 38.66 to 45.51% of the extracted skill behavior constraints on average. We then use Fail verdicts to strengthen the corresponding skill content only by emphasizing the original instructions that the agent failed to follow, and run the same tasks with the strengthened skills. This emphasis yields an average 16.0% recovery rate of the failed tasks across the five agent-model rows. These results show that skill coverage is both a test-adequacy metric and a fine-grained signal for observing skill-use behavior. In failed tasks, failed constraint labels provide actionable evidence for improving agent skill effectiveness. A project website accompanies the paper.