What Does a Skill Actually Do? Estimands and Evaluation Validity for Tool and Skill Use in LLM Agents: A Critical Review

Agent skills -- structured, reusable knowledge artifacts that augment LLM agent capabilities -- have been rapidly adopted in industry, yet their cross-domain impact and use across commercial and open-source models remain under-studied, and no reusable methodology exists for evaluating an individual skill. In this work, we present an evaluation framework that lets a skill author construct realistic tasks to rigorously assess the aspects of a skill that matter most to them, and that estimates skill utility by solving those tasks. Further, we apply our evaluation approach at scale to 500 real-world skills, generating 1,000 tasks derived from the skills' content, along with instruction-following and goal-completion scoring rubrics. Using these metrics, we evaluate how 19 agent-model configurations, both proprietary and open-source, perform on the tasks. Our results show that models vary widely in how closely they adhere to the instructions encoded in skills, leading to substantial differences in their performance gains. Furthermore, we show that access to a skill significantly changes model behavior compared to the no-skill setup, providing an essential mechanism for encoding opinionated workflows into LLM agents. We release our evaluation dataset to support future work on agent skills.

Agent skills are the de facto mechanism for extending LLM agents with reusable guidance. A skill can shape the agent's task execution, including planning, tool use, problem-solving, and validation. Prior work reported mixed results of agent skills: some skills improve task success rates, while others have no effect, increase token use and execution time, and even reduce success rates. This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of skill-induced agent failures by attributing task failures and cost regressions to specific loaded skills. We introduce a differential analysis framework that attributes a failure or regression to a skill by comparing a target skill-guided run against a no-skill or semantically matched skill reference run that solves the same task, or solves it more cheaply. We instantiate this framework on SkillsBench and SWE-Skills-Bench, yielding 307 skill-induced failures, including 125 functional failures and 182 efficiency regressions. We also build SkillTriage, a taxonomy-guided attribution tool that normalizes paired cases, extracts differential evidence, and produces triage reports. Our major findings include: (1) Skill induced functional failures are rarely caused by obviously irrelevant skills; instead, seemingly relevant skills often make the agent incorrectly implement or omit task-required implementation elements. (2) Skill-induced efficiency regressions are not explained by prompt length alone. (3) The largest sources within Excessive Procedure are excessive verification and heavy implementation pipelines, contributing 67 and 30 cases, respectively. This shows that skills often turn validation checklists and construction recipes into mandatory work. Based on our findings, we propose research topics and tooling improvements for safer and more cost-aware skill reuse.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly rely on external skills, yet standard evaluations obscure whether retrieving these skills actually helps. Aggregate metrics often compare retrieved versus non-retrieved tasks, introducing severe selection bias and failing to isolate the true effect of skill use. To measure this actual-use capability-which we formalize as Skill Following (SF)-we introduce the Retrieval-Invoked Actual-Use Effect (RAE). RAE computes the same-task outcome difference between matched skill-enabled and skill-disabled executions, conditioned exclusively on tasks where the agent actively retrieved a skill. Evaluating 17 LLMs across coding and mathematical domains, we uncover a stark evaluation paradox: models frequently show positive aggregate retrieval lift but negative RAE. On MBPP+, multiple models that appear to benefit system-wide actually harm their own performance on the exact tasks where retrieval occurred. These findings demonstrate that aggregate averages can create a misleading illusion of tool-use proficiency, whereas RAE directly measures whether the retrieval-to-answer pipeline genuinely rescues more outcomes than it harms.