LLM agent frameworks heavily rely on external skill assets to standardize tool usage, encode operational workflows, and supply executable runtime resources. Despite their widespread adoption, multi-component skill packages frequently suffer from cross-artifact inconsistencies, where documentation, scripts, and configuration files specify conflicting behavioral constraints. Although static auditing techniques can uncover such contractual discrepancies, static defect volume cannot reliably reflect real-world agent performance degradation. This gap leaves practitioners without rigorous evidence to assess the practical risk of flawed agent skills. This paper presents a systematic empirical study to demystify the runtime implications of skill inconsistencies. We conduct large-scale auditing over 575 community and benchmark skills, yielding 1,182 manually validated contract inconsistencies. We further build a controlled evaluation pipeline with 49 executable agent tasks and three representative LLMs across NoSkill, OriginalSkill, and FixedSkill experimental settings. Through fine-grained behavioral analysis of 441 paired execution trajectories, we quantify the actual performance impacts of resolved defects.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. The workflow of using Skills.
Figure 2. A real-world Skill. ① marks an Inter Document inconsistency, while ② and ③ mark Document Code inconsistencies.
Figure 3. The Study pipeline of the paper.
Source
Software Engineering
Media & Content Production
Finance & Economics
Cybersecurity
Office & White Collar
Industrial & Physical Systems
Natural Science
Mathematics & Operations Research
SkillBench ( n=87 )
16 18.4%
5 5.7%
9 10.3%
7 8.0%
14 16.1%
14 16.1%
14 16.1%
8 9.2%
Github ( n=488 )
395 80.9%
36 7.4%
18 3.7%
5 1.0%
24 4.9%
2 0.4%
6 1.2%
2 0.4%
Table 1. Category distribution of the SkillBench and Github datasets.
Figure 4. Taxonomy of skill - level inconsistencies.
Agent reads the skill, either from skills/ or through the Skill tool.
Unused
Agent never reads the skill and the inconsistency lies outside execution.
Bypass
Agent is exposed but does not use the inconsistent element. No changed file is executed and no shipped-only form is authored.
Follow
The inconsistent behaviour reaches the artifact. A tied verifier check fails in OriginalSkill and passes in FixedSkill .
Recover
The inconsistent behaviour is triggered, but the tied checks still pass.
BothFail
The tied check fails in both trials and the fix is not decisive.
Table 3. Trajectory coding scheme.
Figure 5. Distribution of confirmed contract inconsistency counts per skill. The y-axis shows the proportion of skills in each bin of per-skill counts.
Dataset
Category
#Skills
≥ 1 Inc.
Total Inc.
Mean
Max
Inc./kLine
GitHub Skills
Doc-only
340
202 (59.4%)
421
1.24
7
6.17
w/ artifacts
148
127 (85.8%)
601
4.06
18
0.98
All
488
329 (67.4%)
1,022
2.09
18
1.50
SkillBench Skills
Doc-only
41
25 (61.0%)
59
1.44
8
2.05
w/ artifacts
46
31 (67.4%)
101
2.20
18
0.91
All
87
56 (64.4%)
160
1.84
18
1.14
Table 4. Inconsistent findings by corpus and skill structure.
Artifact boundary
Inconsistency type
GitHub Skills
SkillBench Skills
Document–Code
over_promise
250 (24.5%)
73 (45.6%)
semantically_conflicting
93 (9.1%)
16 (10.0%)
under_promise
1 (0.1%)
1 (0.6%)
subtotal
344 (33.7%)
90 (56.2%)
Inter Document
shared_concept_definition_divergence
162 (15.9%)
27 (16.9%)
cross_document_workflow_conflict
81 (7.9%)
2 (1.2%)
Table 5. Distribution of contract inconsistencies by taxonomy.
Corpus
Metric
Software Engineering
Media
Office
Finance
Natural Science
Cybersecurity
Industrial
Math/Formal
All
GitHub Skills
n
395
36
24
18
6
5
2
2
488
Rate
66%
75%
71%
83%
50%
80%
100%
0%
67%
SkillBench Skills
n
16
5
14
9
14
7
14
8
87
Rate
69%
60%
50%
56%
79%
71%
57%
75%
64%
Table 6. Inconsistency prevalence across domains.
Model
NoSkill
Original
Fixed
Δ
Tasks ↑ / = / ↓
Claude Haiku 4.5
0.534
0.741
0.877
+0.136
30 / 10 / 9
Qwen3.6-35B
0.498
0.707
0.792
+0.085
26 / 9 / 14
DeepSeek-Flash
0.689
0.870
0.893
+0.023
13 / 30 / 6
Table 7. Effectiveness across skill conditions on GitHub tasks.
Model
Condition
Tokens (med.)
Calls
Turns
Time (s)
Trunc. (%)
Tokens/point
Claude Haiku 4.5
NoSkill
472k
19
21
128
30
1.22M
Original
472k
16
19
124
24
0.83M
Fixed
435k
16
21
110
20
0.69M
Qwen3.6-35B
NoSkill
335k
18
24
580
19
0.96M
Original
362k
15
21
508
15
0.71M
Fixed
344k
14
21
468
18
0.63M
Table 8. Efficiency across skill conditions on GitHub tasks.
Model
n
Exposed
Rate
Path only
Tool only
Both
Claude Haiku 4.5
147
144
98%
75
21
48
Qwen3.6-35B
147
137
93%
120
1
16
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
147
147
100%
119
1
27
All
441
428
97.1%
314
23
91
Table 9. Skill exposure by model and access route.
Model
Recover → success
Follow → failure
BothFail
Used, no effect
Bypass
Unused
All
Haiku
40
44
40
9
11
3
147
Qwen
33
35
43
11
15
10
147
DeepSeek
82
18
20
19
8
0
147
All
155
97
103
39
34
13
441
Table 10. Response distribution by model.
Figure 6. Response composition by inconsistency type and model. BothFail denotes the control class.
Response
n (fires)
Δ score
net Δ token
Footprint turns
Footprint (s)
Follow → failure
97 (87)
+0.366
+34 k
14.4
104
Recover → success
155 (155)
−0.038
−57 k
12.3
60
Bypass
34 (4)
+0.097
+2 k
3.8
40
BothFail (control)
103 (87)
+0.030
+7 k
19.6
169
Used, no effect
39 (3)
−0.047
−44 k
11.3
24
Unused
13 (3)
+0.127
+4 k
16.0
88
Table 11. Outcome by response class.
Fix effect
n
Share
Mean Δ score
Failure count reduced (partial fix)
38
37%
+0.352
Failure count unchanged
37
36%
+0.011
Failure count increased (adverse)
28
27%
−0.380
Total
103
100%
Table 12. Decomposition of the BothFail control class.
Large language model (LLM) agent reliability concerns dependable, safe, and verifiable behavior across tools, multi-step tasks, and changing environments.
Agent skills let LLM agents reuse instructions, resources, tools, and workflows, but they also create a new place for malicious behavior to hide. A skill may look benign in its documentation or code while becoming harmful only when it is invoked with particular user requests, local assets, persistent state, or multi-step tool interactions. This makes purely static vetting brittle. We present Runtime Skill Audit (RSA), a dynamic analysis method that audits skills by asking what the skill-mediated agent actually does under targeted runtime conditions. Instead of testing every skill with the same generic tasks, RSA profiles risk-relevant interfaces, prepares the execution context needed to exercise them, and assigns security labels from the resulting trace evidence. We instantiate RSA on OpenClaw and evaluate it on 100 skills against representative static baselines. RSA achieves 90.0% accuracy with an 88.0% true positive rate and an 8.0% false positive rate, improving accuracy by 13.0 percentage points over the best static baseline. Under self-evolving attacks, static detectors collapse after one or two rounds, while RSA continues to detect 19--20 out of 20 malicious skills across rounds.
LLM agents are increasingly equipped with skills to perform complex tasks through multi-step reasoning and tool use. Although skills provide reusable procedural knowledge, agents may still execute them unreliably. Even when an agent has demonstrated the capability to complete tasks under the guidance of a skill, it may fail to do so consistently across similar tasks or repeated runs due to deviations from the skill procedure or incorrect execution of individual steps. Such instability limits the practical reliability of LLM agents. To address this problem, we propose SkillSentry, a skill-oriented runtime assurance framework built upon a new domain-specific language (DSL) for representing runtime guidance for skill execution. SkillSentry initializes the runtime guidance by combining a skill specification extracted from the corresponding skill document with execution experience mined from historical successful and failed traces. It then wraps around the agent execution loop to monitor and guide skill execution under the current guidance, while iteratively refining the guidance using newly collected traces. We evaluate SkillSentry on 15 skills across two LLM agents, each paired with two backbone models, i.e., Claude Code with Claude-Haiku-4.5 and Claude-Opus-4.6, and Codex with GPT-5.2 and GPT-5.4. Our results show that SkillSentry improves the task success rate of LLM agents by 24.1% across skills, on average, while exhibiting lower variability across repeated runs.
You Lu, Xinyu Huang, Bihuan Chen +1
College of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, China
Agent Skills provide reusable capabilities to LLM agents. Agent Skill inconsistencies can expose undisclosed dangerous behavior or cause wrong Skill selection. Recent Agent Skill research has increasingly examined Agent Skill consistency detection. Existing methods evaluate behaviors or security-property graphs against predefined categories or declared scopes. More recently, PL-HCL uses an LLM-based model to learn consistency across metadata, instructions, and resources. However, declaration and implementation behavior can be mixed across text and code, and a concise declaration can correspond to multiple connected implementation steps. We present SkillConsist to address both challenges. An LLM separates declaration and implementation content into behavior records on the implementation and declaration sides, while static analysis supplements implementation records. These records form declaration and implementation behavior graphs, respectively. Starting from a behavior record on either side, bidirectional graph alignment searches the other graph for a candidate subgraph and expands it along behavior relations until it completely expresses the source-side behavior. Graph differencing identifies conflicts between aligned subgraphs and outputs the detection results. We construct a 633-Skill benchmark from ClawHub's 500 most-downloaded public Skills and 133 Skill-Inject packages. The benchmark contains 319 inconsistent and 314 consistent Skills and 442 localized inconsistency annotations. On this benchmark, SkillConsist achieves 86.85% precision, 89.03% recall, and 87.93% F1 for package-level detection, improving F1 over the best baseline by 20.43 percentage points. For localization, it achieves 67.60% precision, 58.14% recall, and 62.52% F1.
Chaofan Meng, Yuhang Zheng, Yingnan Zhou +1
College of Cryptology and Cyber Science, Nankai University