arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2602.12670

SkillsBench: Benchmarking How Well Agent Skills Work Across Diverse Tasks

Xiangyi Li·Yimin Liu·Wenbo Chen·Bingran You·Zonglin Di·Yifeng He·Shenghan Zheng·Kyoung Whan Choe·Jiankai Sun·Shuyi Wang·Chujun Tao·Binxu Li·Xuandong Zhao·Hejia Geng·Xiaojun Wu·Junwei Zhou·Xiaokun Chen·Hanwen Xing·Yubo Li·Qunhong Zeng·Di Wang·Yuanli Wang·Roey Ben Chaim·Penghao Jiang·Haotian Shen·Luyang Kong·Xinyi Liu·Runhui Wang·Xuanqing Liu·Jiachen Li·Xin Lan·Yueqian Lin·Wengao Ye·Junwei He·Songlin Li·Yue Zhang·Yipeng Gao·Yijiang Li·Ze Ma·Liqiang Jing·Tianyu Wang·Kaixin Li·Yiqi Xue·Haoran Lyu·Yizhuo He·Yuchen Tian·Shutong Wu·Bowei Wang·Yixuan Gao·Bo Chen·Litong Liu·Sikai Cheng·Jiajun Bao·Shuaicheng Tong·Shuwen Xu·Terry Yue Zhuo·Tinghan Ye·Qi Qi·Miao Li·Longtai Liao·Zelin Tan·Chang Shi·Xilin Tang·Srinath Tankasala·Boqin Yuan·Yaoyao Qian·Jianhong Tu·Chenguang Wang·Yizhou Sun·Wei Wang·Aaron Taylor·Ziyue Yang·Changkun Guan·Zhikang Dong·Xinyu Zhang·Steven Dillmann·Han-chung Lee·Dawn Song
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Agent Skills are structured packages of procedural knowledge that augment large language model (LLM) agents at inference time. Despite rapid adoption, there is no standard way to measure whether they actually help. We present SkillsBench, a benchmark whose current inventory contains 87 tasks across 8 domains paired with curated Skills and deterministic verifiers. Our latest aggregate evaluation runs the 87-task benchmark under matched no-Skills and curated-Skills conditions for 18 model-harness configurations. Curated Skills raise the average pass rate from 33.9% to 50.5% (+16.6 percentage points; 25.5% normalized gain), with configuration-level gains ranging from +4.1 to +25.7 pp. Focused Skills with at most three modules outperform larger or exhaustive bundles, and smaller models with Skills can match larger models without them. SkillsBench establishes paired evaluation as the foundation for rigorous measurement of Skill efficacy on agentic, expertise-heavy work.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Xiangyi Li, Yimin Liu, Wenbo Chen, Bingran You, Zonglin Di, Yifeng He, Shenghan Zheng, Kyoung Whan Choe, Jiankai Sun, Shuyi Wang, Chujun Tao, Binxu Li, Xuandong Zhao, Hejia Geng, Xiaojun Wu, Junwei Zhou, Xiaokun Chen, Hanwen Xing, Yubo Li, Qunhong Zeng, Di Wang, Yuanli Wang, Roey Ben Chaim, Penghao Jiang, Haotian Shen, Luyang Kong, Xinyi Liu, Runhui Wang, Xuanqing Liu, Jiachen Li, Xin Lan, Yueqian Lin, Wengao Ye, Junwei He, Songlin Li, Yue Zhang, Yipeng Gao, Yijiang Li, Ze Ma, Liqiang Jing, Tianyu Wang, Kaixin Li, Yiqi Xue, Haoran Lyu, Yizhuo He, Yuchen Tian, Shutong Wu, Bowei Wang, Yixuan Gao, Bo Chen, Litong Liu, Sikai Cheng, Jiajun Bao, Shuaicheng Tong, Shuwen Xu, Terry Yue Zhuo, Tinghan Ye, Qi Qi, Miao Li, Longtai Liao, Zelin Tan, Chang Shi, Xilin Tang, Srinath Tankasala, Boqin Yuan, Yaoyao Qian, Jianhong Tu, Chenguang Wang, Yizhou Sun, Wei Wang, Aaron Taylor, Ziyue Yang, Changkun Guan, Zhikang Dong, Xinyu Zhang, Steven Dillmann, Han-chung Lee, Dawn Song. 2026-02-13. SkillsBench: Benchmarking How Well Agent Skills Work Across Diverse Tasks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12670

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗