pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.19362 · v2 · pith:DIUD5CFInew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

Toward User Comprehension Supports for LLM Agent Skill Specifications

Zikai Alex Wen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 07:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI
keywords LLM agentsskill specificationsuser comprehensioncybersecuritycapability disclosuremarkdownagent skillsbounded expectations
0
0 comments X

The pith

LLM agent skill specifications should be evaluated as user-facing capability disclosures to support bounded user expectations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines SKILL markdown specifications for LLM agents to determine if they help users understand what skills consume, produce, and cover. Analyzing 878 cybersecurity skills with rule-based coding for four comprehension anchors reveals that operational basis cues are widespread, but example capability demonstrations appear in only 19 percent of cases and all four anchors in only 2.3 percent. A closer look at a small subset of DNS and C2 telemetry skills shows that without examples, users often need to examine code to recover details like arguments or output fields. The authors argue that these specifications function as capability disclosures for users rather than just instruction containers for execution.

Core claim

The central discovery is that textual cues for the four comprehension anchors are unevenly distributed across agent skill specifications, with comprehensive coverage rare, implying that users frequently lack sufficient information to form accurate expectations about skill capabilities.

What carries the argument

Rule-based coding of textual cues for four comprehension anchors in SKILL markdown files, which serves to quantify how well specifications support user comprehension of operational basis, output contract, boundary disclosure, and example capability demonstration.

If this is right

  • Users selecting skills without example cues may have difficulty constructing local checks for expected behavior.
  • Missing boundary disclosures could lead to unexpected skill behaviors in user contexts.
  • Evaluation of agent skills needs to incorporate user comprehension metrics alongside safety audits.
  • Skill creators should include all four anchors to better inform potential users.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Designing standardized templates that enforce the four anchors could standardize skill disclosures across platforms.
  • Similar analysis could be applied to non-cybersecurity domains to see if the pattern holds.
  • Integrating automated checks for these anchors into skill marketplaces might improve overall user trust.

Load-bearing premise

That the selected four comprehension anchors adequately capture what users need to form bounded expectations and that automated rule-based coding reliably detects them without significant errors or omissions.

What would settle it

Observing whether users who are shown only specifications without the four anchors can still accurately predict skill inputs, outputs, and limitations in a real usage scenario.

read the original abstract

Users often interpret and select agent skills through their SKILL markdown specifications. To protect users, existing audits mainly focus on malicious or unsafe skills. We study the complementary question of whether specifications help users form bounded expectations about what a skill consumes, produces, and covers. Across 878 cybersecurity skills, we used rule-based coding to measure textual cues for four comprehension anchors, namely operational basis, output contract, boundary disclosure, and example capability demonstration. Cues for operational basis were common, but only 19.0% of specifications exhibited cues for an example task, sample, or expected outcome, and only 2.3% exhibited cues for all four anchors. We further examined a small DNS/C2 telemetry subset (n$=$6) to illustrate why missing examples may matter. Examples appeared to make first local checks easier to construct, while no-example skills typically required helper code inspection to recover command arguments or output fields. We argue that agent-skill evaluation should treat specifications as user-facing capability disclosures, not merely as containers for executable instructions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an empirical analysis of 878 cybersecurity skill specifications for LLM agents. Using rule-based coding, the authors measure the presence of textual cues corresponding to four comprehension anchors: operational basis, output contract, boundary disclosure, and example capability demonstration. They find that operational basis cues are prevalent, but example cues appear in only 19.0% of specifications and all four anchors in just 2.3%. A qualitative examination of a small DNS/C2 subset (n=6) illustrates potential issues with missing examples. The authors conclude that skill specifications should be evaluated as user-facing capability disclosures rather than solely as executable instruction containers.

Significance. If the coding scheme proves reliable, this work supplies a useful large-sample observational baseline on the current state of skill specifications in the cybersecurity domain. The sample size of 878 strengthens the descriptive frequencies, and the reframing of specifications as capability disclosures could usefully inform design of agent skill marketplaces and auditing practices. The paper provides a clear empirical core with no free parameters or fitted models.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods (rule-based coding description): The exact rule-based patterns used to detect cues for the four anchors (operational basis, output contract, boundary disclosure, example capability demonstration) are not specified, nor is inter-coder reliability or any human validation of the coding rules against direct comprehension measures reported. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the reported frequencies (19.0% for example cues, 2.3% for all four anchors) rest entirely on the untested assumption that these textual patterns reliably capture the anchors without substantial false negatives or context loss.
  2. [Results] Results (DNS/C2 subset): The n=6 DNS/C2 illustration is presented as post-hoc qualitative support for why missing examples matter, but its small size and lack of systematic sampling prevent it from validating the anchors or demonstrating causal effects on user expectation formation. This weakens the bridge from the observational frequencies to the recommendation that specifications be treated as capability disclosures.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract could explicitly name the domain (cybersecurity skills) and total sample size earlier for immediate clarity.
  2. [Methods] The manuscript would benefit from an appendix or supplementary table listing the precise textual cue patterns used in the rule-based coding to allow replication.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, indicating planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods (rule-based coding description): The exact rule-based patterns used to detect cues for the four anchors (operational basis, output contract, boundary disclosure, example capability demonstration) are not specified, nor is inter-coder reliability or any human validation of the coding rules against direct comprehension measures reported. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the reported frequencies (19.0% for example cues, 2.3% for all four anchors) rest entirely on the untested assumption that these textual patterns reliably capture the anchors without substantial false negatives or context loss.

    Authors: We agree that the specific rule-based patterns should be provided to support reproducibility. In the revised manuscript we will add an appendix containing the exact keyword lists, regular expressions, and decision logic used to detect each of the four anchors. Because the procedure is fully deterministic and rule-based, conventional inter-coder reliability statistics are not applicable; we will nevertheless document the iterative development and spot-checking of the rules on a held-out sample. We acknowledge that the study does not include direct human validation against comprehension measures; this was outside the scope of the observational baseline we set out to establish. We will state this limitation explicitly and identify user studies that map textual cues to actual expectation formation as valuable future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (DNS/C2 subset): The n=6 DNS/C2 illustration is presented as post-hoc qualitative support for why missing examples matter, but its small size and lack of systematic sampling prevent it from validating the anchors or demonstrating causal effects on user expectation formation. This weakens the bridge from the observational frequencies to the recommendation that specifications be treated as capability disclosures.

    Authors: We agree that the DNS/C2 examination (n=6) is small, post-hoc, and illustrative only. Its role in the paper is to supply concrete, domain-specific examples of how the absence of example cues can affect practical inspection, not to validate the anchors or demonstrate causality. We will revise the relevant section to emphasize its limited, qualitative purpose and to avoid any implication that it independently supports the broader recommendation. The primary empirical contribution and the argument for treating specifications as capability disclosures rest on the frequencies observed across the full set of 878 specifications. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical measurement study

full rationale

The paper conducts a direct empirical study by applying rule-based coding to detect the presence of textual cues for four author-defined comprehension anchors across a dataset of 878 cybersecurity skill specifications. Reported statistics such as 19.0% exhibiting example cues and 2.3% exhibiting all four anchors are straightforward frequency counts from this coding scheme applied to the source texts. The n=6 DNS/C2 subset is presented only as an illustration of potential implications. No equations, fitted parameters, predictive derivations, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text that would reduce these measurements to prior inputs by construction. The analysis is self-contained as an observational coding exercise.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the four textual anchors are sufficient proxies for user comprehension and that rule-based detection captures them adequately; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The four comprehension anchors (operational basis, output contract, boundary disclosure, example capability demonstration) are the appropriate set for assessing whether specifications help users form bounded expectations.
    Invoked when the authors define the measurement targets and interpret low coverage as a problem for user understanding.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5700 in / 1334 out tokens · 50147 ms · 2026-05-21T07:27:37.839076+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bharathi Donku, Shahriar Rahman Khan, Tariqul Islam, and Raiful Hasan. 2025. Discrepancies in Mobile App Permissions: Exploring Transparency and User Awareness in the Android Ecosystem. InCHI EA. 1–8. doi:10.1145/3706599.3719902

    work page doi:10.1145/3706599.3719902 2025

  2. [2]

    Adrienne Porter Felt, Elizabeth Ha, Serge Egelman, Ariel Haney, Erika Chin, and David Wagner. 2012. Android Permissions: User At- tention, Comprehension, and Behavior. InSOUPS. 1–14. doi:10.1145/ 2335356.2335360

    work page arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Mark Harman, Yue Jia, and Yuanyuan Zhang. 2012. App store mining and analysis: MSR for app stores. InIEEE MSR. 108–111. doi:10.1109/ MSR.2012.6224306

    work page arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Mahipal Jangra. 2026. Anthropic Cybersecurity Skills.https://github. com/mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills

    work page 2026

  5. [5]

    Eyad Kelleh. 2026. Awesome Claude Skills Security.https://github. com/Eyadkelleh/awesome-claude-skills-security

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    nutrition label

    Patrick Gage Kelley, Joanna Bresee, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Robert W. Reeder. 2009. A "Nutrition Label" for Privacy. InSOUPS. 1–12. doi:10.1145/1572532.1572538

    work page doi:10.1145/1572532.1572538 2009

  7. [7]

    Ishika Keswani, Kerick Walker, Adrian Clement, Eusila Kitur, Nanna- pas Wonghirundacha, Ryan Aubrey, Vivien Song, and Eleanor Birrell

    work page

  8. [8]

    User Understandings of Technical Terms in App Privacy Labels. InSOUPS. 279–298.https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2025/ presentation/keswani

    work page

  9. [9]

    Frederic Lardinois. 2025. Agent Skills: Anthropic’s Next Bid to Define AI Standards.https://thenewstack.io/agent-skills-anthropics-next- bid-to-define-ai-standards/

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Eric Olsson, Benjamin Eriksson, Pablo Picazo-Sanchez, Lukas An- dersson, and Andrei Sabelfeld. 2024. FakeX: A Framework for De- tecting Fake Reviews of Browser Extensions. InASIA CCS. 769–784. doi:10.1145/3634737.3656999

    work page doi:10.1145/3634737.3656999 2024

  11. [11]

    Rahul Pandita, Xusheng Xiao, Wei Yang, William Enck, and Tao Xie

    work page

  12. [12]

    InUSENIX Security

    WHYPER: Towards Automating Risk Assessment of Mobile Applications. InUSENIX Security. 527–542.https://www.usenix.org/ system/files/conference/usenixsecurity13/sec13-paper_pandita.pdf

    work page

  13. [13]

    Mark Pors. 2026. skill-audit.https://github.com/pors/skill-audit

    work page 2026

  14. [14]

    Zhengyang Qu, Vaibhav Rastogi, Xinyi Zhang, Yan Chen, Tiantian Zhu, and Zhong Chen. 2014. AutoCog: Measuring the Description- to-permission Fidelity in Android Applications. InCCS. 1354–1365. doi:10.1145/2660267.2660287

    work page doi:10.1145/2660267.2660287 2014

  15. [15]

    Alireza Rezvani. 2026. Claude Skills.https://github.com/ alirezarezvani/claude-skills

    work page 2026

  16. [16]

    SaFo-Lab. 2026. DynAuditClaw.https://github.com/SaFo-Lab/ DynAuditClaw

    work page 2026

  17. [17]

    Durity, and Lorrie Faith Cranor

    Florian Schaub, Rebecca Balebako, Adam L. Durity, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2015. A Design Space for Effective Privacy Notices. InSOUPS. 1–17.https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/soups2015/ soups15-paper-schaub.pdf

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Faysal Hossain Shezan, Kaiming Cheng, Zhen Zhang, Yinzhi Cao, and Yuan Tian. 2020. TKPERM: Cross-platform Permission Knowledge Transfer to Detect Overprivileged Third-party Applications. InNDSS. doi:10.14722/ndss.2020.24287

    work page doi:10.14722/ndss.2020.24287 2020

  19. [19]

    Trail of Bits. 2026. Skills.https://github.com/trailofbits/skills

    work page 2026

  20. [20]

    Transilience. 2026. Community Tools.https://github.com/ transilienceai/communitytools

    work page 2026

  21. [21]

    Takuya Watanabe, Mitsuaki Akiyama, Tetsuya Sakai, Hironori Washizaki, and Tatsuya Mori. 2015. Understanding the Inconsisten- cies between Text Descriptions and the Use of Privacy-sensitive Re- sources of Mobile Apps. InSOUPS.https://www.usenix.org/system/ files/conference/soups2015/soups15-paper-watanabe.pdf

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    Haiyue Zhang. 2026. Agent Audit: Static Security Analysis for AI Agent Applications.https://github.com/HeadyZhang/agent-audit

    work page 2026

  23. [23]

    Shikun Zhang, Lily Klucinec, Kyerra Norton, Norman Sadeh, and Lor- rie Faith Cranor. 2024. Exploring Expandable-Grid Designs to Make iOS App Privacy Labels More Usable. InSOUPS. 139–157.https: //www.usenix.org/conference/soups2024/presentation/zhang

    work page 2024