Skill documents are becoming the default adaptation surface for frozen large language model (LLM) agents, but current skill generators face two key limitations. First, humans and different LLMs differ in how they organize procedural knowledge and approach task solving. Skills authored from a human or single-model perspective may therefore fail to align with the reasoning behaviors of other backbones, limiting cross-model generalization. Second, sequential skill descriptions inadequately represent procedures with parallel branches and explicit dependencies, while existing skill optimizers primarily operate on prose and lack explicit support for graph-structured skill evolution. We introduce MultiEvoSkill, a skill-optimization framework comprising three core components: 1) Skill compiler casts the skill as a typed graph with tailored operators, producing a compact, informative representation with explicit procedural topology; 2) Heterogeneous agent system proposes revision advices using collective intelligence, where minimal and informative issues are identified based on multiple sets of experiences. 3) Structure-aware debate and evolution mechanism organizes candidate edits into a heterogeneous graph, resolves them under dependency and importance constraints, and distills the collective proposal into the artifact. Multi-dimensional gating ensures the information gain and topological correctness of each evolution. Optimal skills are then obtained when the system converges at a consistent state. Various experiments and ablations against SOTA methods validate the effectiveness and generalization of MultiEvoSkill.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of two key advantages of our approach. (a) Graph-form skills explicitly encode procedural dependencies, branch conditions, and reusable actions, unlike linear prose. (b) Collective intelligence enables heterogeneous agents to exchange complementary experience and consolidate it into a single generalizable skill artifact.
Figure 2: Overview of MultiEvoSkill. Heterogeneous executors collect evidences for reflection; issue-specific proposer debates produce patches against one fixed parent. A hierarchical revisor merges patches, and the gate commits or rejects the resulting graph. Selection data enter the gate, not proposal generation.
Graph element
Procedural meaning
Decision 7
Decide whether results must remain formula-driven.
7true8
Create formulas with correct references when recalculation is required.
7false9
Compute and write materialized values when requested.
8→10 , 9→10
Continue to row merging after the selected branch.
Node 10 label
Preserve existing order; append only missing keys.
Edge note
Explain a guard or ordering rationale.
Table 1: Graph–document correspondence for the spreadsheet formula/value branch. Original node IDs are retained.
Method
WikiHow
ToolAlpaca
WebShop
SearchQA
SpreadsheetBench
Trace2Skill
53.04
35.30
28.69
86.88
50.00
CoEvoSkills
53.90
33.13
31.58
87.78
83.93
SkillOpt
53.39
53.54
34.54
88.14
82.14
SkillBoost
54.24
35.81
28.72
80.80
83.21
SkillGen
54.56
33.65
29.12
87.38
58.21
MultiEvoSkill
55.58
53.88
34.77
88.25
86.07
Table 2: Test-set scores across five benchmarks. Bold indicates the best result in a column.
Sample type
Required procedure
Why prose is fragile
Graph behavior
Lookup
Identify key row and target column; return exact cell value.
Aggregation and formatting rules are irrelevant but appear in the same prose skill.
Activate lookup branch only; skip aggregation and formatting subgraphs.
Formatting is a separate operation but prose may mix it with value computation.
Activate formatting branch with its own validation node.
Table 3: The illustrative prose skill combines several workflows in one paragraph, whereas a typed skill graph explicitly represents different branches for different samples while sharing common upstream nodes.
Variant
WikiHow
ToolAlpaca
WebShop
w/o δ1
45.88
27.71
31.53
w/o δ2
50.75
43.85
32.88
w/o δ3
50.75
45.69
33.03
w/o δ4
54.64
51.69
33.45
Full
55.58
53.88
34.77
Table 4: Proposer-panel ablations.
Variant
WikiHow
ToolAlpaca
WebShop
w/o g1
42.32
45.95
30.53
w/o g2
41.23
45.40
30.11
w/o g3
40.84
47.06
31.35
w/o g4
49.07
46.88
33.31
w/o g5
53.19
49.02
33.24
Full Gate
55.58
53.88
34.77
Table 5: Gating ablations.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Route
Representative methods
Trajectory distillation
Trace2Skill ( Ni et al., 2026 ) , SkillCAT ( Chen et al., 2026 ) , SkillEvolver ( Zhang et al., 2026a ) , Memento-Skills ( Zhou et al., 2026a ) , WikiSkill ( Tang et al., 2026 )
Execution-feedback refinement
SkillOpt ( Yang et al., 2026 ) , SkillBoost ( Lin et al., 2026 ) , SkillGrad ( Wang et al., 2026 ) , SkillRevise ( Liu et al., 2026 ) , EmbodiSkill ( Ju et al., 2026 )
Multi-agent evolution
CoEvoSkills ( Zhang et al., 2026b ) , SkillGen ( Ma et al., 2026 ) , MIND-Skill ( Li et al., 2026b ) , SkillHone ( Li and Hu, 2026 )
Population-based evolution
AgentPSO ( Hwang et al., 2026 ) , MOCHA ( Tanjim et al., 2026 ) , GEPA ( Agrawal et al., 2025 ) , EvoSkill ( Alzubi et al., 2026 )
Reinforcement-learning-based
D2Skill ( Tu et al., 2026 ) , SkillRL ( Xia et al., 2026a ) , SkillOS ( Ouyang et al., 2026 ) , Skill1 ( Shi et al., 2026b )
Appendix
Table 6: Major routes for agentic skill evolution.
Domain
n0
e
b
ϵ
τ
q0
WikiHow
40
4
40
.03
.01
.5
ToolAlpaca
40
4
40
.03
.01
.5
WebShop
40
4
40
.03
.01
.5
SpreadsheetBench
40
4
40
.10
.02
.5
SearchQA
40
4
40
.02
.01
.5
Appendix
Table 7: Evolution hyperparameters used in our experiments: initialization examples n0 , epochs e , batch size b , regression base tolerance ϵ , mean-gain threshold τ , and non-decrease fraction q0 .
Domain
Train
Selection
Test
WikiHow
157
53
52
ToolAlpaca
56
19
18
WebShop
80
27
26
SpreadsheetBench
80
40
280
SearchQA
400
200
1400
Appendix
Table 8: Dataset split sizes and evaluation protocol.