ContinualSkillBench: Can LLM Agents Truly Evolve Their Capabilities?
Abstract
Modern agent frameworks equip large language models with external skill libraries to solve complex tasks. However, it remains unclear whether these systems can effectively evolve their skills and whether the resulting skills improve task-solving capabilities. To bridge this gap, we introduce ContinualSkillBench, a dynamic evaluation framework for in-context continual skill learning. It covers five representative domains, each containing 100 interconnected subtasks ordered by increasing difficulty and opportunities for cross-task skill reuse. Our experiments show that sequential execution generally improves performance, but the gains vary substantially across models and domains. Moreover, in-context learning performs comparably to explicit skill maintenance on average, suggesting that much of the improvement arises from adaptation to prior context and feedback rather than reusable skill abstraction alone. Explicit skills nevertheless provide selective benefits for tasks requiring reusable procedures or precise outputs. We further find that less capable models tend to accumulate larger, more fragmented collections of task-specific skills. These findings show that current in-context skill evolution mechanisms can support continual adaptation, but still struggle to consistently consolidate experience into robust and transferable skills.
Community
Modern agent frameworks equip large language models with external skill libraries to solve complex tasks. However, it remains unclear whether these systems can effectively evolve their skills and whether the resulting skills improve task-solving capabilities. To bridge this gap, we introduce ContinualSkillBench, a dynamic evaluation framework for in-context continual skill learning. It covers five representative domains, each containing 100 interconnected subtasks ordered by increasing difficulty and opportunities for cross-task skill reuse. Our experiments show that sequential execution generally improves performance, but the gains vary substantially across models and domains. Moreover, in-context learning performs comparably to explicit skill maintenance on average, suggesting that much of the improvement arises from adaptation to prior context and feedback rather than reusable skill abstraction alone. Explicit skills nevertheless provide selective benefits for tasks requiring reusable procedures or precise outputs. We further find that less capable models tend to accumulate larger, more fragmented collections of task-specific skills. These findings show that current in-context skill evolution mechanisms can support continual adaptation, but still struggle to consistently consolidate experience into robust and transferable skills.
I've been running agents with skill libraries for a while, and the thing that always bugged me is whether the skills actually compound or just fill up disk space. ContinualSkillBench finally gives me a way to measure that. The setup is smart — 100 subtasks per domain, increasing difficulty, and they check if skills from earlier tasks actually help on later ones. The finding that sequential execution degrades skill quality over time matches what I've seen: agents tend to write narrow, task-specific skills instead of reusable ones. What I'd really like to see is whether a simple retrieval-time reranking of the skill library (instead of just appending) changes the decay curve. Also curious if the benchmark penalizes skill verbosity — my agents write bloated skills and I suspect that's part of the problem. Either way, this is the kind of eval the agent-building community actually needs.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment! Both points are very interesting and align with directions we would like to explore further.
For retrieval-time reranking, our current experiments only include a RAG-style baseline over prior task-solving trajectories and feedback. In our preliminary results, this trajectory-level RAG baseline performs worse than pure ICL, suggesting that simply retrieving past traces is not enough. However, we agree that reranking over the explicit skill library itself is a different and promising direction, and we will consider it in future work.
For skill verbosity and quality decay, the current benchmark does not explicitly penalize verbose or low-quality skills. Instead, it measures their effect indirectly through downstream task performance: if the accumulated skills become bloated, overly specific, or hard to reuse, this should be reflected in weaker sequential gains. However, we do additionally extract and analyze generated skills in Appendix G. This skill-quality analysis is not part of the benchmark evaluation score, but partly serves as an explanatory analysis for why stronger models benefit more reliably from skill maintenance than weaker models.
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2608.03874 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper