This work finds that reliability depends more on grounding and verification than on procedural skill choice, and finds that reliability depends more on grounding and verification than on procedural skill choice.
Abstract
Adding procedural skills to an LLM agent is typically evaluated by average improvement in task success. However, this metric hides an important cost: skills can also make agents worse. We measure both sides by comparing agents with and without skills across nearly 6,000 runs spanning two office automation benchmarks and three model harness stacks. This allows us to distinguish two outcomes. A regression is a task solved without skills but failed after skills are added. A residual failure is a task that fails both with and without skills. We find that regressions are substantial enough that the best performing skills outperform others primarily by regressing less, not by gaining more. We identify three causes of regression: (i) skill description osmosis, a skill changes an agent's behavior simply by being present in context, even when it is never invoked; (ii) grounding displacement, a skill's prescribed procedure overrides how the agent interprets its inputs; and (iii) verification displacement, where the procedure suppresses checks the agent would otherwise perform on its outputs. Analysing persistent failures reveals the same underlying pattern. Existing skills overemphasize procedural guidance the stage least often responsible for failure while under supporting grounding and verification, the dominant sources of remaining errors. After correcting evaluation artifacts and studying traces, we find many regressions and persistent failures recoverable through better grounding and verification. Procedural skills should be evaluated by decomposing their net effect into gains and regressions, not by aggregate improvement alone. We identify three regression modes skills should avoid, and find that reliability depends more on grounding and verification than on procedural skill choice.
Agent skills are the de facto mechanism for extending LLM agents with reusable guidance. A skill can shape the agent's task execution, including planning, tool use, problem-solving, and validation. Prior work reported mixed results of agent skills: some skills improve task success rates, while others have no effect, increase token use and execution time, and even reduce success rates. This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of skill-induced agent failures by attributing task failures and cost regressions to specific loaded skills. We introduce a differential analysis framework that attributes a failure or regression to a skill by comparing a target skill-guided run against a no-skill or semantically matched skill reference run that solves the same task, or solves it more cheaply. We instantiate this framework on SkillsBench and SWE-Skills-Bench, yielding 307 skill-induced failures, including 125 functional failures and 182 efficiency regressions. We also build SkillTriage, a taxonomy-guided attribution tool that normalizes paired cases, extracts differential evidence, and produces triage reports. Our major findings include: (1) Skill induced functional failures are rarely caused by obviously irrelevant skills; instead, seemingly relevant skills often make the agent incorrectly implement or omit task-required implementation elements. (2) Skill-induced efficiency regressions are not explained by prompt length alone. (3) The largest sources within Excessive Procedure are excessive verification and heavy implementation pipelines, contributing 67 and 30 cases, respectively. This shows that skills often turn validation checklists and construction recipes into mandatory work. Based on our findings, we propose research topics and tooling improvements for safer and more cost-aware skill reuse.
Skill-Use is introduced, a benchmark that evaluates skill use under progressive disclosure, where an agent sees only a skill's name and short description and must retrieve the full procedure before following it.
Jinyi Han, Yuanjian Xu, Ying Liao et al.· 2 citations
This work designs a contrastive study that combines controlled quantitative experiments with paired trajectory analysis and consolidates observations into a taxonomy of three high-level categories and twelve skill-use modes, showing that skills work when noisy trajectories become procedural anchors that stabilize execution.
Zhiyuan Jiang, Fan Huang, Hanwen Xing et al.· 0 citations
These findings recast a matched Skill as a hypothesis about a particular Skill-project-model triple rather than a portable asset, reframing injection as a per-deployment routing decision and making length-matched controls and per-model audits a minimum standard for Agent-Skill evaluation.
The proposed SkillShapley operates in two phases, motivated by key empirical insights, i.e., discretized benchmark rewards that create sharp performance cliffs, and step interactions that are largely additive rather than synergistic.
Chang Liu, Yu-Quan Zhang, Yiman Zhong et al.· 0 citations
Task difficulty dictates an agent's likelihood of success, and estimating it without rollouts means forecasting this directly from a task description before executing costly simulations in stateful environments. Reliable estimates would therefore allow environment designers to calibrate evaluation benchmarks and construct progressive training curricula. This becomes increasingly important as agents move into long-horizon domains, where empirical trial-and-error is a severe computational bottleneck. Prior work on early prediction is limited to static tasks or isolated coding environments, often relying on narrow features and inaccurate evaluation metrics. We study \textit{ex ante} difficulty prediction across 17 agentic benchmarks spanning coding, mathematics, machine learning, web navigation, function calling, and other domains. We show that AUC can mask poor difficulty estimates, identify token-level entropy as a useful predictive signal, and show how residuals between expected and observed difficulty can expose hidden environment flaws such as contamination and infeasibility.
Stefan Krsteski, Charlotte Meyer· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
