Understanding When Reflective Prompt and Skill Optimization Helps on Locally Served Reasoning Models: A Two-Model Study of GEPA and SkillOpt

Reasoning modes of language models outperform their non-reasoning counterparts on multi-step agentic tasks, but pay a 3-6x premium in output tokens on every episode -- much of it spent re-deriving procedures that are shared across episodes of the same domain. We show this recurring cost can be amortized: a coding agent analyses a small corpus of existing trajectories from a training split and compiles a compact natural-language skill that is injected into the non-reasoning model's system prompt. Across four agentic benchmarks (ALFWorld, tau$^2$-bench telecom and retail, and SpreadsheetBench-Verified), skills recover 55%-100%+ of the reasoning gap for GPT-5.4-mini on held-out tasks -- exceeding the reasoning mode outright on two of four -- while emitting 2.7-6x fewer output tokens and zero reasoning tokens. Notably, reasoning traces are not a prerequisite: skills distilled from non-reasoning trajectories alone remain competitive with skills distilled from paired reasoning/non-reasoning corpora, with domain-dependent differences between the two sources. We interpret these results through a search lens: test-time reasoning is deep search inside a single episode, re-paid at every deployment, while corpus distillation is wide search across episodes, paid once. The two recover overlapping procedural knowledge, and width over cheap trajectories is often the better buy -- with the residual gap on some domains (telecom, SpreadsheetBench) delineating where genuinely per-instance deep search remains necessary.

Prompt optimizers automate the search for prompts that improve language-model performance, but existing methods rely on a predefined optimization procedure: the algorithm determines which candidates to explore and how the search progresses, while the language model generates or refines prompt proposals. We introduce RLMOpt, a prompt optimizer that makes the search policy itself language-model-driven through a recursive language model (RLM). The RLM agent operates over a tool-based environment, inspecting task information, analyzing failures, generating candidates, allocating evaluation budget, and deciding when to stop. A deterministic harness complements the agent by enforcing objective scoring, Pareto-based selection, and regression constraints. We evaluate RLMOpt across four benchmarks spanning structured clinical information extraction (Chia), multi-hop question answering (HotpotQA), verifiable instruction following (IFBench-2025), and multi-turn tool-calling agents (BFCL). In a matched comparison at a single seed, RLMOpt obtains the best held-out score on all four benchmarks and leads the four-task mean (0.610 against 0.589 for GEPA). Repeating each benchmark across seeds yields 11 matched benchmark-seed comparisons, in which RLMOpt outperforms GEPA in 9 cases. Across all 11 runs, it never produced a prompt that underperformed its seed, whereas GEPA fell below its starting point twice. It is also more efficient, achieving these results with fewer search rollouts while producing prompts that are 27-79% the size of those produced by GEPA. Our results further show that optimization gains are determined primarily by the headroom available in the seed prompt, rather than by the search budget. Efficient optimization therefore depends on reaching the available headroom reliably and with minimal search

Automated prompt optimization methods (e.g., DSpy, TextGrad) can substantially improve the performance of large language model (LLM), however, their generalization ability across different tasks remains underperformed. In practice, the superiority of the optimized prompt on one benchmark often fails to transfer to another, and this limitation persists even when switching across different LLM backbones. To investigate the underexplored sources of heterogeneity in prompt performance, we conduct a causal inference-inspired observational analysis of optimized prompts across a diverse set of optimization frameworks, LLM backbones, and NLP benchmarks. To achieve the goal, we build upon the propensity-adjusted associational analysis together with multiple complementary representations of prompt edits, where the consistent task-conditioned edits patterns are identified. We find that complexity-increasing and meta-instructional edits are negatively associated with mathematical and multi-hop reasoning performance, whereas step-by-step and meta-cognitive edits improve logical and sequential reasoning tasks. These effects are robust across cognitive-load annotations, surface-level text features, and edit-motif analyses, and can generalize across optimization frameworks. Overall, these results indicate that prompt optimization failures arise from systematic interactions between edit families and task characteristics rather than random optimization artifacts, providing feature-level characterization of optimizer behavior and motivating future task-conditioned optimizer design.