Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Fine-tuning on capability profiles lets one retriever rank agents, tools, and skills in unseen catalogs.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 18:15 UTC pith:W53MWYFR

load-bearing objection A useful transfer study with a load-bearing checkpoint-selection weakness that the authors themselves admit; the direction is solid but the headline claim needs a stricter protocol. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17347 v1 pith:W53MWYFR submitted 2026-07-19 cs.IR

Adapting Embedding Models for Agent Capability Retrieval

Tingwei Chen , Yunxiao Shi , Zhengdong Chu , Qingsong Wen , Min Xu This is my paper
classification cs.IR
keywords agent searchquery-to-agent recommendationcapability profilesembedding modelstransfer learningtool retrievalskill discoveryLoRA fine-tuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that retrieval of agents, tool bundles, and skills can be handled by one retriever, provided every marketplace entry is first rewritten as a short capability profile — a natural-language summary of what the entry can do. To test this, it fine-tunes three off-the-shelf embedding models on the AgentSelect benchmark using only such profiles, then evaluates them on two catalogs the training never touched: MuleRun native agents and a new ClawHub skill benchmark. Adaptation improves query-to-agent ranking on both unseen catalogs for all three models, with P@1 rising by roughly 6 to 14 points. The authors read this as evidence for a shared metadata-level retrieval view across LLM routing, tool selection, and skill discovery, which are normally studied separately.

Core claim

Each executable unit — a native agent, a tool bundle, or a SKILL.md skill package — can be serialized as a capability profile, and a single dense bi-encoder retriever can rank all of them against narrative user queries. Fine-tuning BGE-base, KaLM-v1.5, and EasyRec on AgentSelect (with LoRA adapters and in-batch contrastive loss) improves ranking on MuleRun and ClawHub, two public catalogs excluded from training. On MuleRun, P@1 rises by 5.7 to 14 points depending on the backbone; on ClawHub, by 9.7 to 10.8 points; nDCG@10 and MRR@10 improve in the same direction. The paper argues this makes a unified retrieval interface for agents, tools, and skills plausible at the metadata level.

What carries the argument

The capability profile is the central representation: a short text view built from public metadata (name, description, backbone when exposed, and tool names and descriptions) that collapses agents, tool bundles, and skills into one candidate catalog. The adaptation method is LoRA fine-tuning of three bi-encoders on positive-only query–profile pairs with in-batch negatives and a contrastive loss at temperature 0.05. The transfer claim depends on the profile being rich enough to carry capability-matching signal yet generic enough that supervision on one catalog generalizes. A second piece of machinery is the ClawHub benchmark: 50 skills, 1,000 GPT-generated queries at five controlled prompt le

Load-bearing premise

The transfer result depends on choosing each target's best checkpoint using validation queries from that same target; if the gains disappear when the epoch is selected using only the training benchmark's validation, the central claim does not survive, and the benchmark also assumes GPT-generated queries stand in for real user requests.

What would settle it

Repeat the adaptation but select each checkpoint using only AgentSelect validation, never the target's held-out queries, and compare against the zero-shot baselines on MuleRun and ClawHub test splits; if the adapted models no longer win, the reported transfer was model selection on the target. Independently, replace the 1,000 GPT-generated ClawHub queries with human-written requests and re-measure: if the gains vanish, the benchmark overstates transfer to real user language.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Marketplace operators could adapt one retriever on a single curated benchmark and deploy it to rank new agent and skill catalogs without per-catalog fine-tuning.
  • Name-plus-description profiles suffice: the ClawHub ablation shows a 112-token profile matches the full SKILL.md text at 2.6x fewer tokens, keeping retrieval cheap.
  • Adapted retrievers handle the messy end of user requests: gains appear at all five prompt levels, including noisy and distractor-confused queries, not just clean explicit ones.
  • Because all three model families transfer, the effect is not tied to one architecture, making the capability-profile representation a plausible shared evaluation target for agent, tool, and skill retrieval.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's setups, a natural next experiment is a single retriever ranking a mixed pool of agents and skills at once — the paper leaves this open — and if it works, the unified marketplace search interface is one step closer.
  • The per-target checkpoint selection is the main threat to the transfer claim; a stricter variant that picks the epoch on AgentSelect validation alone would cleanly separate adaptation from target-aware model selection.
  • The ClawHub queries are generated from the target profiles themselves, so the benchmark may encode the generation model's phrasing patterns; an evaluation with human-typed queries would show whether the transfer signal is about real user language.
  • If the capability-profile representation is as portable as claimed, it could supply a single supervision source for tool retrieval and LLM routing, which currently train on separate benchmarks and may not share signal.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether fine-tuning open bi-encoder retrieval models on AgentSelect capability profiles improves query-to-agent ranking on two catalogs unseen during training: MuleRun native agents and a new ClawHub benchmark of 50 skills with 1,000 prompt-generated queries. Three backbones (BGE-base, KaLM-v1.5, EasyRec) are adapted with LoRA under a common protocol; all three improve over their zero-shot baselines on both transfer targets. The authors conclude that a single metadata-level retriever can be adapted once and then rank agents, tool bundles, and skills across catalogs.

Significance. If the transfer result holds under a model-selection protocol that does not touch the target catalog, the paper provides a practical and interesting recipe: one metadata-level retriever adapted on a synthetic capability-profile benchmark can generalize to unseen public agent and skill marketplaces. The use of three diverse backbones, the external MuleRun catalog, the controlled L1–L5 query-style levels, and the promised code/data release are strengths. The result is currently conditional, however: checkpoint selection uses the target's own validation queries, and the ClawHub queries are generated from the target profiles themselves, so the 'unseen catalog' claim is weaker than stated. With AgentSelect-only model selection and an independent query source (or a reframed claim), the contribution would be solid.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4 'Model selection'; Tables 4–5; Limitations] The central transfer claim is undermined by per-target checkpoint selection. The protocol selects the best epoch independently for each target using 10% of that target's queries as validation, then reports test metrics for that epoch. The validation sets are only 108 (MuleRun) and 100 (ClawHub) queries, so the selected epoch is the one that happens to do best on a noisy sample; reporting its test performance overestimates the expected performance of a checkpoint chosen without target access. The Limitations section concedes this. Please re-report Tables 4–5 with checkpoints selected on AgentSelect validation alone (or a fixed epoch per backbone), and/or show per-epoch curves for each target. The conclusion's wording 'adaptation on AgentSelect improves ... on the unseen catalogs' presupposes a checkpoint chosen without target access, which the current evidence does not establish.
  2. [§5 'ClawHub'; Figure 2] The ClawHub queries are generated by GPT-5.4 conditioned on the target skill's profile and on distractor profiles from the same 50-skill catalog (Figure 2). Thus the gold label for each query is the very profile text used to generate the query. This does not invalidate the base-versus-adapted comparison on those queries, but it makes 'unseen catalog' substantially weaker: the query distribution is derived from the target item text. Please either collect or cite independently authored user queries, or explicitly reframe ClawHub as a synthetic controlled benchmark and base the 'unseen catalog' transfer claim on MuleRun alone. As it stands, the ClawHub results support the adapted-versus-base comparison but not the broader claim of transfer to real user requests.
  3. [§6, Tables 4–6] No confidence intervals, significance tests, or repeated-split variance are reported. With 972 and 900 test queries and checkpoint selection on 108/100 validation queries, the reported P@1 and nDCG differences could be accompanied by bootstrap confidence intervals or results over multiple random 10% validation splits. The consistent direction across three backbones is reassuring, but quantifying variance would strengthen the load-bearing 'adaptation helps' claim, especially for the smaller ClawHub catalog.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§7/Conclusion] The Conclusion states that a single retriever 'can search across agents, tools, and skills,' but the experiments evaluate MuleRun and ClawHub in separate candidate pools; mixed-catalog retrieval is left to future work, as the Limitations acknowledge. Please qualify the conclusion accordingly.
  2. [Table 7] Formatting issue: the numerical cells '0.50890.66570.6116' and '0.49560.66910.6106' are missing separators between metrics.
  3. [§4] Minor wording: 'AgentSelectPart II' and 'AgentSelectPart III' need spacing, and '2.6× fewer tokens' would be clearer as '26% of the token count' or similar.
  4. [§4 Training setup] No random seed or number of repeated runs is reported for the 10% validation split. Please state the seed(s) or report results over multiple splits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; transfer claim is independently grounded on external catalogs, with only minor self-citation and a disclosed model-selection limitation.

full rationale

The core claim—adaptation on AgentSelect improves retrieval on unseen MuleRun and ClawHub catalogs—is tested by new base-vs-adapted comparisons in Tables 4 and 5 on external catalogs; the adapted models' LoRA weights are fit only on AgentSelect, not on the targets, so the comparison does not reduce to a fitted parameter. The per-target checkpoint selection (Section 4: 'We select the best checkpoint independently per target by validation nDCG@10 and report the corresponding test-split metrics.') is a disclosed limitation that can overstate transfer gains, but it is a statistical selection issue, not a definitional equivalence; the Limitations section explicitly concedes it 'does not leak labels but does expose model selection to the target distribution.' ClawHub queries are GPT-generated from target profiles, but this is a standard benchmark construction and the paper does not present the L1-L5 labels as human-validated. The only notable self-citation is to AgentSelect [16], the authors' own benchmark, for in-domain leaderboards and training data; this is not load-bearing for the transfer result, which is measured on external catalogs. No equation or definitional chain in the paper forces the claimed improvement.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities with independent falsifiable handles. Its free parameters are training and selection choices; its axioms are domain assumptions about data validity and the evaluation protocol.

free parameters (3)
  • Per-backbone LoRA configuration = EasyRec: lr 5e-6, r=8, alpha=16; BGE-base: lr 1e-5, r=8, alpha=16; KaLM: lr 1e-5, r=8, alpha=16
    Table 1 reports the final per-backbone configuration; hand-selected hyperparameters that affect the training outcome.
  • Training hyperparameters = AdamW, 10 epochs, temperature 0.05, one random negative per positive
    Shared across all backbones; standard choices but still free parameters chosen by the authors.
  • Checkpoint epoch selected per target = e.g., BGE-base: epoch 3 for MuleRun, epoch 6 for ClawHub
    Section 4: best checkpoint selected independently per target on that target's validation split; this is the main per-target fitted quantity.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption AgentSelect's positive-only supervision is valid for capability matching
    Fine-tuning relies on pseudo-positive query–profile pairs from [16], whose validation is cited rather than independently shown.
  • domain assumption Capability profiles derived from public metadata capture enough signal for retrieval
    The paper explicitly excludes cost, latency, runtime, and safety; it assumes the metadata text is sufficient (Section 3).
  • domain assumption GPT-5.4 prompt-generated queries faithfully represent real marketplace user requests
    Section 5 constructs ClawHub labels from a prompt conditioned on target and distractor profiles; the model's difficulty labels are not human-validated.
  • domain assumption MuleRun tool primitives inferred from marketplace descriptions are accurate
    Section 5: 5–10 tool primitives are inferred from each agent's marketplace description without independent verification.
  • domain assumption Per-target validation-based checkpoint selection does not invalidate the transfer claim
    Section 4 and Limitations: the transfer claim depends on this methodological choice being acceptable, and the paper itself flags it as a caveat.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10571 in / 15107 out tokens · 151360 ms · 2026-08-01T18:15:05.174360+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Open agent marketplaces list native agents, tool bundles, and reusable skill packages in the same search interface, yet practitioners still have little guidance on how to retrieve across this mixed catalog. We study whether off-the-shelf retrieval models, trained for general text retrieval, can be adapted to match user queries to executable agent capabilities, and whether the learned signal transfers beyond the benchmark used for tuning. We fine-tune three open retrieval backbones, BGE-base, KaLM-v1.5, and EasyRec, on AgentSelect, which represents marketplace-visible units as capability profiles derived from public metadata, and test transfer on two catalogs not seen during training: MuleRun native agents and a ClawHub benchmark of 50 skills with 1,000 queries. Adaptation helps on both catalogs. Code and data will be released upon publication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17347 by Min Xu, Qingsong Wen, Tingwei Chen, Yunxiao Shi, Zhengdong Chu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: AgentSelect benchmark profiles, MuleRun marketplace entries, and ClawHub [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Prompt template used to generate narrative queries per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

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

30 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Xiang Fei, Xiawu Zheng, and Hao Feng. 2025. Mcp-zero: Active tool discovery for autonomous llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01056(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Tiantian Gan and Qiyao Sun. 2025. Rag-mcp: Mitigating prompt bloat in llm tool selection via retrieval-augmented generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.03275 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Qitian Jason Hu, Jacob Bieker, Xiuyu Li, Nan Jiang, Benjamin Keigwin, Gaurav Ranganath, Kurt Keutzer, and Shriyash Kaustubh Upadhyay. 2024. RouterBench: A Benchmark for Multi-LLM Routing System. InAgentic Markets Workshop at ICML 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=IVXmV8Uxwh

    2024

  4. [4]

    Zhongzhan Huang, Guoming Ling, Yupei Lin, Yandong Chen, Shanshan Zhong, Hefeng Wu, and Liang Lin. 2025. Routereval: A comprehensive benchmark for routing llms to explore model-level scaling up in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10657(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Wittawat Jitkrittum, Harikrishna Narasimhan, Ankit Singh Rawat, Jeevesh Juneja, Congchao Wang, Zifeng Wang, Alec Go, Chen-Yu Lee, Pradeep Shenoy, Rina Panigrahy, et al. 2025. Universal model routing for efficient llm inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08773(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    To Eun Kim and Fernando Diaz. 2026. LTRR: Learning to Rank Retrievers for LLMs. InProceedings of the 49th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR)

    2026

  7. [7]

    Zhiling Luo, Xiaorong Shi, Xuanrui Lin, and Jinyang Gao. 2025. Evaluation report on mcp servers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11094(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Kai Mei, Wujiang Xu, Minghao Guo, Shuhang Lin, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2025. Omnirouter: Budget and performance controllable multi-llm routing.ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter27, 2 (2025), 107–116

    2025

  9. [9]

    Suhong Moon, Siddharth Jha, Lutfi Eren Erdogan, Sehoon Kim, Woosang Lim, Kurt Keutzer, and Amir Gholami. 2024. Efficient and scalable estimation of tool representations in vector space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02141(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    2026.MuleRun: World’s Largest AI Agent Store

    MuleRun. 2026.MuleRun: World’s Largest AI Agent Store. https://mulerun.com/

    2026

  11. [11]

    Felix Ocker, Daniel Tanneberg, Julian Eggert, and Michael Gienger. 2024. Tulip Agent–Enabling LLM-Based Agents to Solve Tasks Using Large Tool Libraries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21778(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Gonzalez, M Waleed Kadous, and Ion Stoica

    Isaac Ong, Amjad Almahairi, Vincent Wu, Wei-Lin Chiang, Tianhao Wu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, M Waleed Kadous, and Ion Stoica. 2025. RouteLLM: Learning to Route LLMs from Preference Data. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=8sSqNntaMr

    2025

  13. [13]

    2025.ClawHub: Skill Registry and Marketplace for OpenClaw

    OpenClaw. 2025.ClawHub: Skill Registry and Marketplace for OpenClaw. https: //clawhub.ai/

    2025

  14. [14]

    Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, et al. 2023. ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-World APIs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.16789(2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Xubin Ren and Chao Huang. 2024. EasyRec: Simple yet Effective Language Models for Recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08821(2024)

    arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Yunxiao Shi, Wujiang Xu, Tingwei Chen, Haoning Shang, Ling Yang, Yunfeng Wan, Zhuo Cao, Xing Zi, Dimitris N Metaxas, and Min Xu. 2026. AgentSelect: Benchmark for Narrative Query-to-Agent Recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.03761(2026)

    arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Zhengliang Shi, Yuhan Wang, Lingyong Yan, Pengjie Ren, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. 2025. Retrieval models aren’t tool-savvy: Bench- marking tool retrieval for large language models. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025. 24497–24524

    2025

  18. [18]

    Jiabin Tang, Tianyu Fan, and Chao Huang. 2026. Autoagent: A fully-automated and zero-code framework for llm agents. InFindings of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: ACL 2026. 42924–42974

    2026

  19. [19]

    Co Tran, Salman Paracha, Adil Hafeez, and Shuguang Chen. 2025. Arch-Router: Aligning LLM Routing with Human Preferences.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.16655 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Chenxi Wang, Zhuoyun Yu, Xin Xie, Wuguannan Yao, Runnan Fang, Shuofei Qiao, Kexin Cao, Guozhou Zheng, Xiang Qi, Peng Zhang, et al . 2026. SkillX: Automatically Constructing Skill Knowledge Bases for Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.04804(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. 2023. Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291(2023). Adapting Embedding Models for Agent Capability Retrieval Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Jiayu Wang, Yifei Ming, Zixuan Ke, Shafiq Joty, Aws Albarghouthi, and Frederic Sala. 2026. SkillOrchestra: Learning to Route Agents via Skill Transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.19672(2026)

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Shitao Xiao, Zheng Liu, Peitian Zhang, Niklas Muennighoff, Defu Lian, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2024. C-pack: Packed resources for general chinese embeddings. InProceedings of the 47th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 641–649

    2024

  24. [24]

    Shitao Xiao, Zheng Liu, Peitian Zhang, and Xingrun Xing. 2024. Lm-cocktail: Resilient tuning of language models via model merging. InFindings of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024. 2474–2488

    2024

  25. [25]

    Renjun Xu and Yang Yan. 2026. Agent skills for large language models: Architec- ture, acquisition, security, and the path forward.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12430 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Wujiang Xu, Yunxiao Shi, Zujie Liang, Xuying Ning, Kai Mei, Kun Wang, Xi Zhu, Min Xu, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2025. iAgent: LLM Agent as a Shield between User and Recommender Systems. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, Wanxiang Che, Joyce Nabende, Ekaterina Shutova, and Mohammad Taher Pilehvar (Eds.). Association for Comput...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.928 2025

  27. [27]

    An Zhang, Yuxin Chen, Leheng Sheng, Xiang Wang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. On Generative Agents in Recommendation. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (Washington DC, USA)(SIGIR ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1807–1817. doi:10.1145/3626772.3657844

    arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    2026.Equipping Agents for the Real World with Agent Skills

    Barry Zhang, Keith Lazuka, and Mahesh Murag. 2026.Equipping Agents for the Real World with Agent Skills. Anthropic. https://www.anthropic.com/ engineering/equipping-agents-for-the-real-world-with-agent-skills

    2026

  29. [29]

    Peitian Zhang, Shitao Xiao, Zheng Liu, Zhicheng Dou, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2023. Retrieve Anything To Augment Large Language Models. CoRR abs/2310.07554 (2023).arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07554442 (2023), 1890–2

    arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Xinping Zhao, Xinshuo Hu, Zifei Shan, Shouzheng Huang, Yao Zhou, Xin Zhang, Zetian Sun, Zhenyu Liu, Dongfang Li, Xinyuan Wei, et al. 2025. Kalm-embedding- v2: Superior training techniques and data inspire A versatile embedding model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20923(2025)

    arXiv 2025