Large language model (LLM) agents tackle complex tasks through reasoning and interaction with external environments. Agent skills provide persistent, transferable capabilities that guide task planning, inform contextual decisions, support tool use, and enable executable procedures. Yet existing skill-evolution methods largely organize knowledge around skill artifacts, overlooking the functional heterogeneity within individual skills and its implications for knowledge maintenance and use. Inspired by cognitive science, we propose Cognitive Differentiation in Skill Evolution (CDSE), which evolves a unified skill through four functionally distinct yet coordinated components: Meta, Experience, Tool, and Script. CDSE extracts evidence-grounded semantic gradients from successful and failed trajectories, consolidates them by functional role, and applies component-specific updates and validation with cross-component coordination and adaptive invocation. An analysis of 500 top-ranked skill packages shows that 96.8% contain knowledge spanning at least two functional roles. Across six benchmarks, three agent models, and two execution harnesses, CDSE achieves the highest scores in all 36 settings, improving over the Base agent by 7.6 percentage points and the strongest competing method in each setting by 2.6 points on average. Ablation studies further support the importance of functional differentiation and adaptive invocation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Performance and framework of CDSE.
Figure 2: Functional composition of 500 widely used skill packages. Left: prevalence of each component; right: the number of components per skill. Component labels are non-exclusive.
Figure 3: CDSE discovers semantic gradients from successful and failed executions, consolidates them by functional role, and updates the four components through specialized maintenance and coordination. Revised invocation descriptions connect the evolving skill to subsequent agent behavior.
Agent model
Method
OfficeQA
Spreadsheet2
SealQA
LiveMath
SWE-Pro
Automation
GLM-5.2 (Claude Code)
Base
71.5
24.0
45.9
83.0
60.2
20.8
Trace2Skill
74.1 +2.6
28.3 +4.3
48.2 +2.3
82.3 -0.7
62.6 +2.4
21.4 +0.6
SkillOpt-lite
76.4 +4.9
26.8 +2.8
49.7 +3.8
85.0 +2.0
63.1 +2.9
24.7 +3.9
EvoSkill
76.0 +4.5
25.9 +1.9
52.4 +6.5
84.4 +1.4
62.6 +2.4
25.5 +4.7
CDSE
77.2 +5.7
30.7 +6.7
54.1 +8.2
87.7 +4.7
68.4 +8.2
32.9 +12.1
DeepSeek-V4-Flash (Claude Code)
Base
68.0
16.8
51.8
59.9
57.8
14.3
Table 1: Task scores (%) across models, harnesses, and skill-evolution methods.
Figure 4: Component removal effects and invocation behavior on GLM-5.2.
Figure 5: Score gains across three CDSE evolution rounds.
Figure 6: Cross-model and cross-harness transfer gains.
Source
Component
OfficeQA
Spreadsheet2
SealQA
LiveMath
SWE-Pro
Automation
Spreadsheet2
Meta
+4.1 (18%)
–
+4.3 (20%)
+0.0 (0%)
+4.1 (10%)
+7.1 (28%)
Experience
+0.8 (6%)
–
-2.8 (14%)
-0.4 (0%)
+0.0 (7%)
-1.6 (2%)
Tool
-1.3 (1%)
–
+0.0 (0%)
+1.0 (0%)
-0.6 (1%)
+0.0 (0%)
Script
-0.6 (2%)
–
-0.9 (0%)
+0.7 (0%)
-3.9 (3%)
-1.6 (0%)
Automation
Meta
+5.7 (10%)
+1.4 (19%)
+6.7 (35%)
+0.2 (0%)
+2.6 (6%)
–
Experience
+2.2 (7%)
-1.2 (0%)
+3.8 (38%)
-0.8 (0%)
+0.0 (4%)
–
Table 2: Cross-benchmark component transfer on GLM-5.2.
Variant
Spreadsheet Bench2
SWE-Pro
Automation Bench
Base
24.0
60.2
20.8
Full CDSE
30.7
68.4
32.9
w/o Cognitive Differentiation
25.8
62.6
24.3
w/o Specialized Update
27.1
65.4
28.0
w/o Cross-Component Coordination
29.6
67.5
30.7
w/o Adaptive Invocation Interface
26.4
64.3
27.1
Table 3: Mechanism ablations on GLM-5.2 with Claude Code. All entries are task scores (%).
Method
Spreadsheet2
SWE-Pro
Automation
Trace2Skill
15.41
41.30
23.90
SkillOpt-lite
29.33
59.82
6.56
EvoSkill
42.67
75.47
5.06
CDSE
7.60
15.04
2.19
Table 4: Input tokens per percentage point of score gain over Base after one evolution round (million tokens/pp, ↓ ), using GLM-5.2 with Claude Code.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
OfficeQA
Spreadsheet Bench2
SealQA
LiveMathBench
SWE-Pro
Automation Bench
Method
Input
Output
Input
Output
Input
Output
Input
Output
Input
Output
Input
Output
Trace2Skill
35.80
1.350
49.30
2.700
10.60
0.480
9.51
1.050
123.90
5.600
23.90
1.050
SkillOpt-lite
38.50
1.450
52.80
2.900
11.40
0.520
10.10
1.150
131.60
5.950
25.60
1.150
EvoSkill
37.20
1.410
51.20
2.820
11.10
0.510
9.89
1.110
128.30
5.830
24.80
1.110
CDSE
37.00
1.400
50.90
2.800
11.00
0.500
9.84
1.100
127.80
5.800
24.70
1.100
Appendix
Table 5: Input and output token consumption (millions of tokens) in a single evolution round with GLM-5.2 and Claude Code.
OfficeQA
Spreadsheet Bench2
SealQA
LiveMathBench
SWE-Pro
Automation Bench
Method
Input
Output
Input
Output
Input
Output
Input
Output
Input
Output
Input
Output
Trace2Skill
12.34
0.466
15.41
0.844
5.89
0.267
N/A
N/A
41.30
1.867
23.90
1.050
SkillOpt-lite
6.64
0.250
29.33
1.611
3.17
0.144
11.22
1.278
59.82
2.705
6.56
0.295
EvoSkill
10.94
0.415
42.67
2.350
1.61
0.074
6.59
0.740
75.47
3.429
5.06
0.227
CDSE
7.87
0.298
7.60
0.418
1.55
0.070
3.08
0.344
15.04
0.682
2.19
0.097
Appendix
Table 6: Single-round input and output tokens per percentage point of score gain over Base on all six benchmarks (million tokens/pp, ↓ ), using GLM-5.2 with Claude Code. Bold marks column minima before rounding. N/A indicates no positive gain: Trace2Skill decreases the LiveMathBench score by 1.4 points.
Benchmark
Meta
Exp.
Tool
Script
OfficeQA
1.60
1.10
1.80
3.60
SpreadsheetBench2
1.40
2.70
4.90
12.30
SealQA
1.00
1.13
2.24
2.67
LiveMathBench
6.25
2.76
–
–
SWE-Pro
1.30
1.70
3.80
10.20
AutomationBench
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.80
Appendix
Table 7: Mean first invocation turn of the four skill components in Figure 4 , evaluated with GLM-5.2 under Claude Code. A dash indicates no invocation.
Figure 7: Evolution over three rounds on all six benchmarks with GLM-5.2, DeepSeek-V4-Flash, and MiniMax-M3 under Claude Code. Scores are shown as percentage-point gains over each model’s no-skill baseline (R0). Each curve shows one reported score at each round; the same trajectory corpus is reused across rounds. The first round provides most of the gain, with smaller, benchmark-dependent changes thereafter.
Benchmark
R0
R1
R2
R3
OfficeQA
71.5
76.2
77.8
77.2
SpreadsheetBench2
24.0
30.7
29.9
30.7
SealQA
45.9
53.0
53.5
54.1
LiveMathBench
83.0
86.2
87.3
87.7
SWE-Pro
60.2
68.7
69.0
68.4
AutomationBench
20.8
32.1
33.3
32.9
Appendix
Table 8: Multi-round evolution scores (%) for GLM-5.2 under Claude Code. R0 is the no-skill baseline.
Benchmark
R0
R1
R2
R3
OfficeQA
68.0
76.5
77.3
77.3
SpreadsheetBench2
16.8
26.9
26.9
26.9
SealQA
51.8
59.4
59.8
59.4
LiveMathBench
59.9
68.7
68.3
69.1
SWE-Pro
57.8
64.7
63.5
64.1
AutomationBench
14.3
27.6
28.2
28.9
Appendix
Table 9: Multi-round evolution scores (%) for DeepSeek-V4-Flash under Claude Code. R0 is the no-skill baseline.
Benchmark
R0
R1
R2
R3
OfficeQA
71.6
80.8
81.4
81.8
SpreadsheetBench2
25.3
34.1
34.7
34.4
SealQA
49.4
57.9
57.5
57.9
LiveMathBench
73.5
82.2
82.5
82.7
SWE-Pro
57.2
65.0
64.7
65.3
AutomationBench
9.1
18.8
19.5
20.0
Appendix
Table 10: Multi-round evolution scores (%) for MiniMax-M3 under Claude Code. R0 is the no-skill baseline.
GLM-5.2
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
Benchmark
Base
N
T
Base
N
T
OfficeQA
71.5
77.2
72.5
68.0
77.3
72.5
SpreadsheetBench2
24.0
30.7
30.0
16.8
26.9
20.7
SealQA
45.9
54.1
49.4
51.8
59.4
48.5
LiveMathBench
83.0
87.7
85.8
59.9
69.1
71.6
SWE-Pro
60.2
68.4
63.5
57.8
64.1
60.4
Appendix
Table 11: Cross-model transfer scores (%) for Figure 6 (Claude Code fixed). Column groups identify the receiving configuration. N: Native; T: Transferred from the other configuration. Gains are relative to Base.
Claude Code
Codex
Benchmark
Base
N
T
Base
N
T
OfficeQA
71.5
77.2
75.3
68.8
74.9
74.3
SpreadsheetBench2
24.0
30.7
28.6
22.7
31.3
26.1
SealQA
45.9
54.1
47.5
22.6
27.6
25.5
LiveMathBench
83.0
87.7
84.2
79.0
83.5
80.2
SWE-Pro
60.2
68.4
64.2
62.3
68.9
65.6
Appendix
Table 12: Cross-harness transfer scores (%) for Figure 6 (GLM-5.2 fixed). Column groups identify the receiving configuration. N: Native; T: Transferred from the other configuration. Gains are relative to Base.
Component
Precision
Recall
F1
Meta
0.860
0.840
0.850
Experience
0.880
0.840
0.860
Tool
0.900
0.860
0.880
Script
0.920
0.900
0.910
Macro average
0.890
0.860
0.875
Appendix
Table 13: LLM annotation quality against expert labels on a random 100-package subset. F1 is computed from the reported precision and recall.
Component
ID
Label
Count
Percentage
Meta
M1
Task Planning & Decomposition
356
71.2%
Meta
M2
Progress & Resource Control
267
53.4%
Meta
M3
Global Verification & Evidence Control
214
42.8%
Meta
M4
Stopping & Finalization
345
69.0%
Experience
E1
Context-Conditioned Heuristic
486
97.2%
Experience
E2
Failure Pattern & Anti-Pattern
421
84.2%
Appendix
Table 14: Fine-grained label prevalence among 500 skills. Labels are non-exclusive; each count is the number of skills containing that label.
Component
Count / 500
Percentage
Meta
443
88.6%
Experience
493
98.6%
Tool
398
79.6%
Script
119
23.8%
Appendix
Table 15: Component prevalence. A skill is counted once for a component if it contains any of that component’s labels.
Components
Skills
Percentage
0
0
0.0%
1
16
3.2%
2
104
20.8%
3
291
58.2%
4
89
17.8%
Total
500
100.0%
Appendix
Table 16: Distribution of the number of functional components per skill. Unlike component marginals, these categories are mutually exclusive.
Benchmark
Task family
Dataset selection
OfficeQA
Document-grounded question answering
Easy and Hard subsets
SpreadsheetBench2
Spreadsheet manipulation
Financial_Model and Template subsets
SealQA
Long-context evidence synthesis
Complete dataset
LiveMathBench
Mathematical reasoning
202605 and 202606 subsets
SWE-Pro
Repository-level software engineering
Three Python subsets: pandas , scikit-learn , and xarray
AutomationBench
Tool-based business workflows
All instances from the Sales and Marketing domains
Appendix
Table 17: Task families and dataset selections. Each selected collection is split into training and test sets at a 2:7 ratio.
Agent skill evolution seeks to improve reusable procedural guidance for large language model (LLM) agents through iterative revision. Existing methods base each revision mainly on execution trajectories or feedback, leaving recurring behavioral requirements across tasks implicit and tying revision to the behavior of the current skill. We introduce SkillFocus, which decomposes recurring task requirements into a capability space that remains fixed as the skill evolves, separating what tasks require from how the current skill behaves. SkillFocus maps current task outcomes to this space to identify the capability that leaves the most tasks unresolved, then uses that capability to determine what to revise and which evidence to use. Across four benchmarks spanning heterogeneous tasks, SkillFocus achieves the best held-out accuracy on all four, outperforming the strongest competing result by 5.7 points on average while using 24% fewer evolution tokens on average than the closest iterative baseline. Controlled studies further show that capabilities derived from recurring task requirements outperform task-semantic and execution-derived alternatives, while randomizing task--capability assignments reduces final accuracy by up to 20.2 points. Matching evidence to the selected capability increases candidate gain by 4.4 points under prioritized revision.
Ning Wang, Zhiren Gong, Bingdong Li +2
East China Normal University · Nanyang Technological University · Southern University of Science and Technology +1
Large language model (LLM) agents can continually improve without parameter updates by converting historical experience into reusable procedural knowledge. However, existing methods often consolidate experience based on semantic similarity or LLM judgments, which may merge superficially related but behaviorally incompatible strategies and thereby degrade performance. To address the issue, we propose SkillCommit, an online skill evolution framework that continuously transforms experience into a hierarchical library of reusable skills. Rather than generalizing from individual experiences immediately, SkillCommit first preserves each experience as an instance-specific patch, retaining its locally validated behavior. As patches accumulate, SkillCommit abstracts those sharing a common behavioral mechanism into higher-level skills. Specifically, for each incoming skill, embedding-based retrieval first identifies candidate related skills. Cross-instance replay and an LLM-based mechanism check determine whether these skills transfer across cases and share a common underlying mechanism. Candidates that pass both checks are abstracted into a higher-level skill and committed only if it preserves the validated behavior of all constituent skills. Experiments on RuleArena, OpenExempt and KOR-Bench demonstrate that SkillCommit consistently improves agent performance across diverse domains. Moreover, the learned skills transfer across model scales and families, enabling cross-model experience transfer.
Yu He, Weikai Yang
Nanjing University · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)
Agent skills provide a lightweight way to adapt LLM agents to specialized domains by storing reusable procedural knowledge in structured files. However, whether downloaded from third parties or self-generated, these skills are often unreliable, incomplete, or outdated. Existing skill-evolution methods often address these deficiencies through heuristic reflections without an explicit optimization formulation. In this paper, we propose SkillGrad, a gradient-descent-inspired framework for optimizing agent skills. SkillGrad treats the skill package as a structured parameter to optimize in a gradient descent fashion: task executions provide trajectory-level loss evidence, automatic diagnoses then provide text-based gradients that indicate the correction directions. To stabilize optimization across iterations, a momentum agent accumulates recurring diagnostic patterns into a persistent memory overlay. Finally, an LLM-based patcher executes the parameter update by applying layer-aware edits to the skill package. Evaluated on SpreadsheetBench Verified and WikiTableQuestions, SkillGrad consistently outperforms training-based skill evolution baselines across two backbone LLMs, improving over the strongest training-based baseline by 6.7 percentage points on average. Ablations further show that momentum and contrastive diagnosis both contribute to the final skill quality.
Hanyu Wang, Yifan Lan, Bochuan Cao +2
College of Information Sciences and Technology The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA, USA