Interactive agents can turn experience into reusable skills, yet existing self-evolving skill libraries primarily improve by accumulating new knowledge. Failures may lead to new skills, while previously stored skills are less often revisited as new evidence arrives. However, growth alone does not ensure reliability, as a retrieved skill may be inapplicable under the current task conditions, and an existing skill may encode a mis-specified operational boundary. Reliable skill evolution therefore requires not only adding knowledge, but also testing and revising what is already stored. We introduce Skill-V, a verifiable self-evolving skill library. To make stored knowledge testable, we propose representing skills as versioned, falsifiable contracts that link semantic intent to observable behavioral criteria. We use environment outcomes to drive library evolution. Specifically, task failures motivate skill addition, while disagreements between contract evaluations and task outcomes guide revisions to existing skill boundaries. To validate these revisions, we require them to preserve protected semantic constraints and satisfy non-regression criteria for rubric-outcome metrics on historical replay evidence. Finally, we employ an applicability-aware filter to exclude candidates judged confidently inapplicable to the current task. Across ALFWorld and WebShop, Skill-V achieves success rates of 95.3% and 85.9%, respectively, while maintaining a more compact skill library than growth-oriented baselines. Applicability-aware filtering reduces incorrect skill invocations, and outcome-grounded revisions correct mis-specified skill boundaries without degrading performance on previously observed evidence. These results show that reliable skill evolution requires more than accumulating experience: the library must learn which knowledge to retain, when to revise it, and when it should be applied.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of self-evolving skill library paradigms. (a) Existing methods rely on growth-oriented evolution. Failures prompt the addition of new skills, but previously stored skills are rarely questioned, which often leads to boundary conflicts. (b) Skill-V treats skills as versioned, falsifiable contracts. It adds missing skills from failures (Path 1) and revises existing operational boundaries when rubric judgments disagree with task outcomes (Path 2). Through validated revisions, the library expands its coverage while actively maintaining the reliability of stored knowledge.
Figure 2: Overview of Skill-V. Skill-V first retrieves and filters task-relevant skills to guide policy interaction, then uses the resulting trajectories and environment outcomes to evolve the skill library. Failures expose missing strategies and lead to the addition of new semantic skills, whereas rubric–outcome disagreements provide counterexamples for revising existing executable skill contracts. Contract revisions are committed only after deterministic validation, and the updated library is reused in future interactions.
ALFWorld
WebShop
Method
Pick
Look
Clean
Heat
Cool
Pick2
All
Score
Succ.
Closed-source LLMs
GPT-4o
75.3
60.8
31.2
56.7
21.6
49.8
48.0
31.8
23.7
Gemini-2.5-Pro
92.8
63.3
62.1
69.0
26.6
58.7
60.3
42.5
35.9
Training-free agents with Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Qwen2.5
33.4
21.6
19.3
6.9
2.8
3.2
14.8
26.4
7.8
Table 1: Main results on ALFWorld and WebShop. ALFWorld reports success rates (%) for each task type and overall. WebShop reports the average task score and success rate (%). The best result is shown in bold and the second best is underlined . † Skill1 expands its ALFWorld skill library to its capacity of 5,000 skills; stored units may not be directly comparable across methods.
Table 4
Task perf.
Revisions
Retrospective audit
Metric regressions ↓
Variant
Success (%) ↑
Committed
Non- regressive
Pass full gate
Disc
FNR
BAcc
w/o Evidence Gate
75.00
46
37 (80.40%)
27 (58.70%)
9
0
3
Full Skill-V
95.30
10
10 (100.00%)
10 (100.00%)
0
0
0
Table 4: Effect of the Evidence Gate on ALFWorld task performance and revision reliability. Non-regressive revisions do not worsen Disc, FNR, or BAcc on replay evidence. Passing the full gate additionally requires satisfying all remaining acceptance conditions. Regression counts are not mutually exclusive.
Table 6
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Component
Stored content
Role
Semantic specification ϕi
skill_id , title , principle , when_to_apply , protected skill_constraints
Defines what capability the skill represents and establishes the semantic boundary that a revision is not allowed to overwrite.
Reusable procedure pi
Ordered natural-language steps
Conditions the policy during interaction and may be refined when experience reveals an incomplete strategy.
Executable rubric ρi
Applicability, required steps, forbidden behaviors, preconditions, postconditions, and termination conditions
Translates the intended behavior into conservative criteria that can be checked deterministically against an executed trajectory.
Evidence interface
Criterion identifier, severity, weight, match mode, source, operator, and pattern
Grounds each executable criterion directly in the task, action, observation, or trajectory rather than in the policy’s hidden reasoning.
Evolution record νi
Skill version, rubric version, traceability, update reason, and evidence case identifiers
Links each committed version to its source skill and to the specific experience that motivated the change.
Appendix
Table 7: Fields of a stored Skill-V contract and their roles in skill use and evolution.
Case 1: Tightening an under-specified boundary gen_004 : Track Counts & Progress
Skill intent, preserved: Track how many goal objects remain and terminate only after the required count is reached.
Counterexample Contract: pass; outcome: failure. Only one target object was collected in a quantity-two task.
⟹
Rubric change Before: no executable distinct-object count. After: require ≥2 take events on distinct objects with a hard event_count criterion.
Case 2: Relaxing an over-restrictive boundary gen_008 : Avoid Redundant Rechecks
Skill intent, preserved: Record inspected locations and avoid revisiting them unless new evidence suggests a state change.
Counterexample Contract: fail; outcome: success. A successful trajectory contained a brief pair of identical consecutive actions.
⟹
Rubric change Before: flag two identical consecutive actions as a loop. After: preserve loop detection but trigger it after three identical consecutive actions.
Table 8: How outcome evidence drives contract evolution in the main ALFWorld experiment at step 150. Skill-V tightens an under-specified boundary that admits failed behavior and relaxes an over-restrictive boundary that rejects successful behavior. Each candidate is evaluated against its previous version on identical replay support. The second revision is accepted as a non-regressive improvement, although it has not yet reached target thresholds.
Rubric
Outcome
Agreement
Interpretation
Pass
Success
Yes
Evidence supporting the current operational boundary.
Fail
Failure
Yes
Consistent negative evidence.
Pass
Failure
No
The contract may be too permissive or under-specified.
Fail
Success
No
The contract may be too restrictive.
Appendix
Table 9: Interpretation of rubric-outcome evidence.
Configuration
ALFWorld
WebShop
Training batch size
16
32
Validation batch size
64
128
Rollouts per instruction
8
8
Maximum environment steps
50
15
Maximum prompt length
8192
6000
Maximum response length
512
768
Appendix
Table 10: Domain-specific configuration for the reported step-150 results. Update limits refer to per-library-update event budgets rather than global limits.
Domain
Initial
Step 150
Net Growth
Accepted Revisions
ALFWorld
55
205
150
10
WebShop
66
153
87
14
Appendix
Table 11: Skill-library evolution through step 150. Total entries include common mistakes, which are stored separately from retrievable contracts.
Metric
Value
Validation success (%)
95.3
Validation task score
8.130
Training-episode success (%)
86.7
Validation rubric score
0.894
Rubric-outcome disagreement
0.033
Hard-criterion violation rate
0.062
Appendix
Table 12: Aggregate ALFWorld diagnostics at the selected step-150 checkpoint.