Organizations: Beihang University, Beijing, China · Guangxi Normal University, Guilin, China · Nankai University, Tianjin, China · Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Skills provide LLM agents with reusable procedural knowledge, making appropriate skill selection essential for reliable agent behavior. As skill libraries expand, distinguishing semantically similar candidates becomes increasingly difficult. Existing methods encode or rewrite skill descriptions for relevance-based ranking, yet heterogeneous descriptions can obscure capability differences. To address this challenge, we propose SKALOS, a graph-native reranker that compares skills via explicit capability evidence. Its multi-hierarchy graph aligns equivalent expressions across skills while preserving skill-specific capability evidence. Since individually relevant capability elements may not jointly support a query, semiring-based capability witness learning scores each branch by its weakest evidence, checks joint support for the extracted requirements within one implementation, and selects the strongest alternative. To reduce the influence of extraction errors, we develop ranking-feedback graph calibration that adjusts unreliable evidence for candidate comparison. Experiments on SkillRet show that SKALOS improves NDCG@10 by 2.68 percentage points over a matched text-only reranker. Witness-guided skill selection also increases ALFWorld task success rate from 22% to 29%.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Three challenges in capability-aware skill selection: heterogeneous descriptions, implicit relations in text, and errors in extracted structures. Equivalent expressions may receive different embeddings; serialized relations must be recovered from textual context; structure extraction may introduce missing or spurious relations.
Figure 2. Overview of SKALOS. Multi-hierarchy capability graphs organize shared and skill-specific evidence; semiring-based witness learning aggregates requirement-covering branches anchored to one implementation; ranking-feedback graph calibration adjusts unreliable evidence used for skill reranking. The framework constructs multi-hierarchy capability graphs from skill documents, encodes query-conditioned graph evidence, forms requirement-covering capability witnesses using a Max-Min semiring, and calibrates evidence confidence through ranking feedback.
Figure 3. A constructed skill graph with four node types and three typed relations. Its OCR method produces CSV tables under an English-only constraint. A skill description on the left is represented by four typed nodes and their relations in JSON on the right.
Figure 4. Max–Min path scoring: each branch is limited by its weakest node or relation. Candidate supporting paths are compared by their bottleneck scores. The strongest path for each requirement contributes to a multi-branch witness anchored to one implementation.
Method
Skill input
Model size
NDCG@5
NDCG@10
Recall@10
Comp.@10
RAG retrieval baselines
Naive-RAG
Full SKILL.md
—
56.46
59.10
67.18
52.09
HippoRAG 2
Full SKILL.md
—
44.80
47.15
55.55
39.23
RAPTOR
Full SKILL.md
—
59.23
62.16
69.08
53.35
General-purpose rerankers
jina-reranker-v2
Meta
0.3B
69.92
73.14
83.93
73.06
Table 1. Retrieval and reranking on SkillRet (percentages). Meta denotes skill metadata. Underlines mark the best published-protocol reranker; matched comparisons appear in a separate group.
Figure 5. NDCG@10 gains by score-gap quartile (Q1: smallest gap). Error bars show 95% CIs. Graph reranking improves NDCG at 10 in every score-gap quartile. Gains are 3.23, 3.27, 2.88, and 1.36 percentage points from the smallest to largest gap. Error bars show paired bootstrap confidence intervals.
Figure 6. NDCG@10 gains from embedding fusion (+Embed) and graph augmentation (+Graph) across base rerankers. Grouped bars compare embedding-score fusion and Graph-Aware Score fusion across five rerankers. Each graph module is trained separately for its reranker. Graph augmentation improves all five rerankers and consistently exceeds embedding-score fusion.
Method
NDCG@10
Recall@10
Comp.@10
First-stage Retrieval
78.03
85.42
75.09
Text-only Pairwise Reranker
84.07
93.39
87.41
Full SKILL.md Reranker
83.06
93.24
87.22
Node-as-Text Reranker
84.21
93.48
87.43
Graph-as-Text Reranker
84.09
93.17
86.66
SKALOS
86.76
94.57
89.59
Table 2. Comparison of skill representations.
Method
NDCG@4
Pair Acc.
Margin
Text Reranker
94.97
95.40
0.0129
Witness
97.27
97.53
0.0391
Table 3. Requirement-coverage stress test after removing 10% of graph nodes and relations.
Setting
NDCG@10
Recall@10
Comp.@10
SKALOS
86.76
94.57
89.59
W/O Graph
83.32
92.67
86.48
W/O Edge
80.35
93.00
86.58
W/O Relation Type
81.23
93.34
87.26
W/O Node Type
81.77
92.96
86.62
W/O Hierarchy
80.83
93.12
86.96
Table 4. Component ablation results.
Corruption
AUPRC
Recall@20%
Enrichment@20%
25%
0.799±0.015
78.3%±1.9%
(3.92±0.09)×
50%
0.593±0.004
57.6%±0.7%
(2.88±0.04)×
75%
0.369±0.014
37.9%±1.8%
(1.89±0.09)×
Random
0.090
20.0%
1.00×
Table 5. Error detection under evidence corruption.
Setting
Perturbed (%)
Enrich. @20% ( × )
Pair rec. (%)
Score rec. (%)
Full (10%)
9.89
3.078
34.38
32.42
Full (20%)
20.10
3.029
33.58
32.45
Full (30%)
30.45
2.944
35.38
32.01
W/O Attr. (20%)
20.10
—
29.60
29.33
Table 6. Calibration under human-annotated errors. Error budgets and recovery scores are percentages.
Figure 7. ALFWorld task success by task family. Task-family success counts compare text relevance with capability witness selection on 200 ALFWorld tasks. Total successes rise from 44 to 58 with the same controller and candidate pools.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Split
Clusters
Skills/cluster
Cap.
Method
Art.
Const.
Train
100
101.23
420.87
19.25
17.95
20.03
Test
95
70.11
298.88
14.58
13.15
14.40
Appendix
Table 7. Capability-graph cluster and node statistics.
Component
Hyperparameter
Value
Text encoder
Status
Frozen
Graph encoding
Hidden size / layers / dropout
128 / 2 / 0.15
Optimization
Optimizer / weight decay
AdamW / 10−4
Gradient clip / accumulation
1.0 / 8
Initialization
Epochs / LR / max negatives
3 / 5×10−4 / 8
Graph training
Epochs / LR / max negatives
2 / 10−4 / 4
Appendix
Table 8. Hyperparameters for graph-reranker training.
Metric
Seed 42
Seed 43
Mean ± SD
NDCG@5
84.331
84.560
84.446±0.162
NDCG@10
86.758
87.032
86.895±0.194
Recall@10
94.568
94.959
94.764±0.276
Comp.@10
89.591
90.353
89.972±0.539
Appendix
Table 9. SKALOS results for two training seeds.
Graph
Mean (ms)
P95 (ms)
QPS
Memory (MiB)
Base
134.85
155.60
7.42
181.64
Augmented
146.97
168.47
6.80
184.16
Appendix
Table 10. Witness scoring efficiency for two graph inputs, using precomputed text embeddings.
Model/run
Time (s)
ms/query
QPS
Base reranker
446
89.45
11.18
Witness, run 1
623
124.95
8.00
Witness, run 2
674
135.18
7.40
Appendix
Table 11. Graph-scoring latency from full evaluation with precomputed embeddings.
Split
Stage
Total
Median/Skill
P95/Skill
Train
Clustering
128.96 min
–
–
Train
Graph extraction
23.21 h
24.34 s
38.47 s
Test
Clustering
64.63 min
–
–
Test
Graph extraction
24.25 h
22.80 s
28.00 s
Appendix
Table 12. Offline capability-graph construction cost.
Component
Parameters
Checkpoint
Training record
Base graph reranker
0.916M
3.51 MiB
33.68 h (3 epochs)
Graph-native reranker
1.999M
7.65 MiB
6.07 min (2 epochs)
Graph-calibration module
1,089
9.70 KiB
65.7 min (200 epochs)
Appendix
Table 13. Trainable model size and recorded training cost.
Comparator
Gain
95% CI
Holm p
Text-only
2.684
[2.263, 3.103]
<0.001
Full SKILL.md
3.703
[3.257, 4.174]
<0.001
Graph-as-Text
2.672
[2.237, 3.095]
<0.001
Appendix
Table 14. Paired NDCG@10 gains of SKALOS over matched internal baselines on all 4,997 test queries.
Reranker
Base
+Graph
Δ
Qwen3-0.6B
79.06
87.97
+8.91
Jina-v2
75.91
87.67
+11.76
BGE-v2-m3
59.79
84.60
+24.81
Qwen3-4B
81.10
88.53
+7.43
Qwen3-8B
80.11
88.78
+8.67
Appendix
Table 15. Graph augmentation results (NDCG@10).
Model
Contrast
Gain
95% CI
Holm p
Qwen3-0.6B
vs. Base
8.913
[8.223, 9.599]
<.001
vs. +Embed
8.312
[7.584, 9.046]
<.001
Jina-v2
vs. Base
11.758
[11.033, 12.489]
<.001
vs. +Embed
8.106
[7.369, 8.862]
<.001
BGE-v2-m3
vs. Base
24.805
[23.973, 25.660]
<.001
vs. +Embed
7.236
[6.473, 7.995]
<.001
Appendix
Table 16. Paired cross-reranker gains on NDCG@10.
Task family
Tasks
Text
+ Witness
Look in light
19
6
6
Pick and place
46
17
22
Clean and place
37
16
18
Cool and place
28
3
6
Heat and place
25
2
6
Pick two and place
45
0
0
Appendix
Table 17. ALFWorld execution success by task family. Text and + Witness report successful task counts.
Metric
25%
50%
75%
AUPRC
0.799±0.015
0.593±0.004
0.369±0.014
Recall@20%
78.3%±1.9%
57.6%±0.7%
37.9%±1.8%
Enrichment@20%
(3.92±0.09)×
(2.88±0.04)×
(1.89±0.09)×
Within-graph AUC
0.875±0.024
0.738±0.025
0.609±0.032
Threshold F1
0.845±0.013
0.662±0.012
0.411±0.016
Appendix
Table 18. Error detection under raw-evidence corruption. Columns indicate corruption levels; values are mean ± SD.
Metric
Full 10%
Full 20%
Full 30%
W/O Attr. 20%
Perturbed (%)
9.89±1.20
20.10±0.98
30.45±1.09
20.10±0.98
Enrich.@20%
3.078±0.180
3.029±0.001
2.944±0.056
–
Pair rec. (%)
34.38±0.85
33.58±5.08
35.38±4.32
29.60±4.19
Score rec. (%)
32.42±0.71
32.45±4.43
32.01±2.74
29.33±3.16
Appendix
Table 19. Calibration recovery and attribution ablation, with mean ± SD across two recorded runs.
Skill usage can significantly enhance the ability of modern agent systems to complete complex tasks. However, the growing scale of skill libraries makes accurate skill selection increasingly challenging. In real-world scenarios, ambiguous semantic matching often arises between a specific task requirement and multiple generic yet semantically similar candidate skills. Moreover, existing methods tend to overlook the dynamic influence of task difficulty and skill applicability when selecting the optimal target skill set. To address these issues, we propose SkillReranker, an inference-time reranking framework for adaptive skill selection. Specifically, we first perform semantic decomposition on both the task and skill sides, yielding informative subtask and execution-state descriptions as well as transition-state descriptions that characterize each skill's functionality. These descriptions are then used to construct a directed acyclic execution graph, where intermediate task states are modeled as nodes and candidate skills as edges, thereby establishing a structured task-skill correspondence. On this basis, SkillReranker determines whether each state node satisfies the split condition to identify subtask intervals. For each task interval, we employ a cross-encoder to perform comprehensive scoring over candidate skills and select the most suitable ones to form the final target skill set. Experiments on ALFWorld and ScienceWorld with three backbone LLMs show that SkillReranker effectively improves task performance, reduces environment interaction steps, and lowers token consumption compared with existing skill selection baselines.
Yanping Chen, Weijie Shi, Wen Yang +1
School of Computer Science and Technology, Soochow University · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Large skill libraries are now standard equipment for LLM agents, and which subset reaches the prompt decides what the agent can do. Enumeration and top-K embedding retrieval both treat skills as independent documents, assuming relevance is a property of one skill at a time. It is not: skills depend on, conflict with, specialize, and duplicate one another, so the closest match to a task can name it while omitting a prerequisite it needs. Graph retrieval encodes these relations but spends them in a fixed pipeline, handing the agent an opaque bundle. We present SkillDAG, which exposes a typed skill graph to the LLM as an agent-callable interface rather than consuming it for the agent: search returns vector matches, typed-edge neighbors, and conflict signals, and a propose-then-commit protocol lets it register execution-backed edges as it works. Across two benchmarks and three model families, SkillDAG outperforms full-library prompting, vector retrieval, and Graph-of-Skills, gaining +14.3 points of ALFWorld success and tying only at ceiling; its ranking holds flat across a 10× pool expansion that degrades the fixed pipeline. Inter-skill structure, these results suggest, is worth more to an agent that can query and revise it than to a retriever that consumes it.
Tong Bai, Zhenglin Wan, Pengfei Zhou +3
Fudan University · National University of Singapore · CFAR, A*STAR
As large language model agents gain access to increasingly large skill libraries, retrieving the right skill becomes critical to reliable capability selection and execution. Existing retrievers often treat skill contents as ordinary documents, overlooking their highly regular structure: shared descriptive patterns recur across many skills while providing little evidence for distinguishing the required capability. We show that this shared descriptive background is reflected in dense relevance scores, induces a pronounced energy gap between queries and skill documents, and obscures discriminative signals, especially for structurally similar hard negatives. Based on this observation, we propose SkillSight, a training-free retrieval framework that calibrates shared background in both semantic and lexical spaces. Semantic Background Calibration estimates a background subspace from generic tokens identified by IDF, reducing similarity induced by shared descriptive patterns, while Lexical Evidence Calibration downweights shared background tokens to recover discriminative token-level evidence. Experiments on SRA-Bench and SkillBench-Supp demonstrate consistent improvements across retrieval metrics, with SkillSight improving Recall@10 by up to 20.21 percentage points over the original dense retriever. It is up to 1,248 times faster than the Dense + Reranker baseline. In end-to-end evaluation, SkillSight achieves the best overall performance across three agent models and outperforms LLM Selection by up to 4.97 percentage points. These results identify shared descriptive background as a source of ranking interference in skill retrieval and demonstrate that calibrating it enables accurate and efficient skill selection without additional training. Our code can be found at https://github.com/xiaojinying/SkillSight
Jinying Xiao, Bin Li, Xiaopeng Li +7
1National University of Defense Technology · 2Qinghai Normal University · 3Xizang University