Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Self-evolving LLM agents fail at library upkeep, not at skill writing; Ratchet shows that lifecycle management alone — retire, cap, and guide authoring — more than doubles held-out pass@1 on hard coding tasks.

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

2026-08-02 13:24 UTC pith:WLIAPTDE

load-bearing objection A real empirical result with a clean ablation design, but the headline gain is confounded by an unablated eval-based rollback, and the non-divergence theorem doesn't apply to the deployed estimator. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.22148 v2 pith:WLIAPTDE submitted 2026-05-21 cs.AI cs.CL

Ratchet: A Minimal Hygiene Recipe for Self-Evolving LLM Agents

Xing Zhang , Yanwei Cui , Guanghui Wang , Ziyuan Li , Wei Qiu , Bing Zhu , Peiyang He This is my paper
classification cs.AI cs.CL
keywords self-evolving agentsskill librarieslifecycle managementlibrary driftoutcome-driven retirementmeta-skillnon-divergenceLLM skills
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.

Self-evolving skill libraries have shown a null result in prior work: skills written by LLMs add about zero points over no-skill baselines, while human-curated skills add substantially. The paper argues the cause is not how skills are written but how the library is managed, and it tests this with Ratchet, a loop in which a frozen LLM writes, retrieves, curates, and retires its own natural-language skills. On a hard 100-task code benchmark, Ratchet lifts held-out pass@1 from 0.258 to a late-window rolling mean of 0.584 — a +0.328 gain — while the no-skill control drifts by only +0.002. Eight ablations show the load-bearing pieces are outcome-driven retirement and a meta-skill authoring prior; explicit deduplication is subsumed at this scale. A formal proposition bounds how far performance can fall below the no-skill floor, assuming the skill-contribution estimate is unbiased.

Core claim

Central claim: the bottleneck in self-evolving skill libraries is lifecycle management, not skill authoring. Ratchet holds the author fixed — a frozen LLM, no weight updates — and varies only governance: retires skills when measured contribution falls below a threshold, caps active skills, and guides new skill writing with a meta-skill prior. That alone doubles held-out pass@1 on a hard 100-task MBPP+ subset (+0.328 rolling gain), and transfers to an agentic, tool-using solver on SWE-bench Verified (+0.22 peak lift). Ablations find retirement and the meta-skill prior load-bearing; explicit deduplication is unnecessary at this scale. A non-divergence proposition bounds drift below the no-skil

What carries the argument

Ratchet's central machinery is the per-round lifecycle loop: Router (selects one skill or none), Solver (frozen LLM plus injected skill), Grader, Critic (labels failures), Synthesizer (writes skills from clusters of at least three failures sharing a pattern), and Curator (retires skills once ĉ(s) = (successes−failures)/trials falls below −τ after N_min trials; a hard cap C evicts the lowest-contribution skill). The meta-skill — a per-suite Markdown document with a schema lock and Do/Don't authoring guidance — makes skill style consistent enough to subsume explicit deduplication. Proposition 1 anchors the design: with an unbiased contribution estimator, expected pass@1 stays at least E[p0] −

Load-bearing premise

The guarantee that performance cannot drift far below the no-skill floor assumes that the score used to retire skills — successes minus failures divided by trials — is an unbiased estimate of how much the skill helps on the whole task distribution, but the deployed system computes that score only on tasks the Router chose to send to the skill, which can systematically inflate it.

What would settle it

Run a controlled probe in which a random subset of tasks is routed to each skill regardless of the Router's choice, and compare each skill's contribution on that random subset with its contribution on the tasks the Router actually selected; if the two diverge, or if a skill that the Curator retains scores no better than the no-skill baseline on the random subset, the unbiasedness assumption behind Proposition 1 is violated.

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

If this is right

  • If the thesis is right, self-improvement for frozen LLM agents does not require better skill writing or weight updates; the leverage is in lifecycle governance — retirement, capacity control, and authoring guidance.
  • A minimal recipe of outcome-driven retirement plus a meta-skill prior is sufficient to more than double held-out pass@1 on hard tasks, meaning simpler systems than full Ratchet may capture most of the gain.
  • Any skill-library system without a bounded active cap and a retirement threshold has no finite bound on performance degradation, so library drift is an unbounded risk rather than a cosmetic issue.
  • The same governance loop transfers to a multi-step, tool-using agent, suggesting the mechanism is domain-agnostic rather than specific to single-call code generation.
  • Ablation A4 implies that aggressive retirement with too little evidence actively harms performance, so the evidence floor is as important as the retirement threshold.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the contribution estimator's unbiasedness is testable by comparing a skill's score on tasks the Router chose versus a randomly routed subset; a systematic gap would mean selection bias is inflating the measured contribution.
  • The finding that explicit deduplication is unnecessary is likely scale-dependent; on larger or more diverse task suites the meta-skill may not provide enough stylistic homogeneity, and explicit filters could become load-bearing.
  • The same hygiene recipe could plausibly apply to other persistent artifacts, such as prompt libraries, workflow definitions, or rule sets, wherever self-authored content accumulates and degrades.
  • The SWE-bench result is reported as a peak lift over only 20 rounds; a stable late-window comparison on that benchmark would be a natural next data point.

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. Ratchet is a single-agent, frozen-LLM skill-library loop with a Router, Solver, Grader, Critic, Synthesizer, Curator, and Meta-Synth, plus a rollback persistence gate. The central empirical claim is that on a 100-task hard subset of MBPP+ (60 train / 40 eval), the full system raises held-out pass@1 from 0.258±0.047 at round 0 to a late-window rolling mean of 0.584 (peak 0.658±0.042) over 100 rounds and 3 seeds, while a no-skill control drifts by +0.002±0.005. Eight ablations (A1–A8) are used to attribute the gain: outcome-driven retirement and the meta-skill authoring prior are said to be load-bearing, with explicit deduplication subsumed. A Proposition 1 claims a non-divergence floor under bounded active-cap and retirement threshold. The same recipe is reported to transfer to an agentic Claude Code solver on a 150-task hard subset of SWE-bench Verified with a +0.22 peak lift over 20 rounds.

Significance. If the empirical result is clean, this is a valuable demonstration that lifecycle management, not skill authoring, is the main bottleneck in self-evolving skill libraries. The paper's strengths are a fixed split, per-seed tables, operational metrics, explicit hyperparameters, and a thoughtful ablation design. The MBPP+ gain is large relative to the seed-to-seed noise, and the no-skill control is a sensible floor. However, the rollback mechanism uses the held-out eval split for snapshot selection, which confounds the headline attribution, and Proposition 1's estimator does not match the implemented Curator. Both issues need to be resolved before the central claims can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.4 / Table 2] The rollback gate uses the same 40-task held-out eval split to decide when to restore the best skill-bank snapshot. The reported late-window rolling mean and peak are therefore not clean held-out estimates: the algorithm adapts to eval labels by selecting snapshots. Rollback is not one of the four mechanisms in Sec. 1, is absent from the minimal recipe in Sec. 6, and is not ablated in A1–A8. The A1 control does not control for rollback because with the Router forced to NONE, restoring the bank cannot affect eval. I request an ablation without rollback (or with rollback driven by a separate validation split), plus a report of rollback frequency; without this, the +0.328 gain cannot be cleanly attributed to retirement+cap+meta-skill.
  2. [Sec. 3.5 vs. Sec. 3.2] Proposition 1 assumes that the empirical contribution estimator ĉ(s) is unbiased and consistent for c(s)=E_{x∼D}[p(x|s)−p0(x)]. But Sec. 3.2 defines ĉ(s)=(successes−failures)/trials, which estimates 2·E_{x∼D_s}[p(x|s)]−1 on the Router-selected task distribution D_s—not a D-averaged treatment effect relative to p0. No baseline subtraction is performed, and routing selection makes D_s differ from D. Consequently, the claimed floor E[p0]−τ−ε−Cδ does not apply to the deployed Curator. This is not a purely formal gap: a skill can have ĉ(s)>−τ even when it hurts on its selected tasks. Please either redesign the estimator to include per-task baseline control and routing correction, or restate Prop. 1 as a stylized model and remove the claim that it covers the implemented system.
  3. [Sec. 4.5 / Table 5] The SWE-bench transfer result is reported as a 'peak lift' over 20 rounds, with the peak taken per seed and then averaged. A maximum over rounds is selection-inflated by construction, and with only 3 seeds and 20 rounds the +0.22 value is not a stable estimate of the method's effect. The hard-150 construction also retains tasks the baseline agent solves on some but not all probe seeds, so the 0.65 baseline reflects seed variance rather than a difficulty floor. I recommend reporting a fixed-round comparison (e.g., mean of rounds 16–20) and using a separate validation split for any checkpoint selection, while tempering the generality claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 6] The A1 row reports Critic=0 but Born=94. Under Sec. 3.2's synthesis pipeline, skills are born from clusters of Critic verdicts, so zero critic calls should imply zero synthesis substrate. Please clarify whether A1 still runs the Critic on skill-less failures, or correct the operational metrics.
  2. [Sec. 4.3 / A4] A4 changes both N_min (100→20) and τ (0.10→0.0) simultaneously, so the attribution of the negative result to 'harsh retirement' is not a clean single-knob ablation. The Hoeffding discussion is suggestive but conflates the evidence floor with the contribution threshold.
  3. [Appendix B / Sec. 1] The hard-100 subset is selected by discarding tasks the baseline solves on all probe seeds. This is disclosed transparently, but the abstract's phrasing 'closes the gap to human-curated performance' should be qualified: the SkillsBench +16.2pp comparison is on a different benchmark, and the MBPP+ gain is on a deliberately hard subset, not the full suite.
  4. [Sec. 4.2 / Table 2] The rolling gain is computed within each run as mean(last 10) − mean(first 10), which cancels baseline variation. This is defensible, but the absolute late-window mean (0.584) is then a derived quantity; please state clearly that it is not directly comparable across conditions with different round-0 baselines.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Rollback selects snapshots on the same held-out eval split that is then reported, confounding the headline +0.328 gain.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.4 (Rollback with a persistence gate); reported in Sec. 4.1 (Metric) and Table 2]
    "A round whose held-out pass@1 falls by more than τrb = 0.10 below the running best is flagged as a regression. ... On rollback, the skill-bank snapshot from the best round is reinstated and the regressed state is archived for audit. ... We report the rolling gain: mean(last 10 rounds) − mean(first 10 rounds) of held-out pass@1, plus the peak over all 100 rounds."

    The rollback gate consumes the same 40-task held-out pass@1 that Sec. 4.1 then reports as the result. Restoring 'the skill-bank snapshot from the best round' is model selection performed on the eval labels; the late-window rolling mean and peak are outcomes of an algorithm that has used the reported metric to choose its own state, not an independent held-out estimate of a fixed algorithm. The A1 no-skill control cannot exhibit this effect because with the Router forced to NONE a restored bank never affects eval, so it does not control for rollback; rollback is also absent from the A1–A8 ablation list. Hence the +0.328 gain attributed to retirement/cap/meta-skill is confounded by an eval-based selector.

full rationale

The central empirical derivation — the +0.328 rolling-mean gain and its attribution to retirement, bounded cap, and meta-skill authoring — is not fully self-contained because the Default configuration includes a rollback mechanism whose selection signal is the very held-out metric used to report the result. Structurally, the final skill bank is chosen to keep the held-out pass@1 high, so the reported held-out numbers are not a clean estimate of a fixed algorithm on unseen labels. The no-skill A1 control does not remove this confound, since rollback cannot affect eval when no skill is injected. I do not score the self-citations (Refs. 3, 6) as circular: the SkillsBench empirical anchor is external, and the main comparison is against an explicit control. The Proposition 1 estimator mismatch is a soundness gap, not a circularity: the implemented ĉ(s) is not an unbiased estimator of the defined c(s), so the theorem's floor does not apply to the deployed Curator, but the proof does not assume its own conclusion. The peak metric additionally inherits max-over-rounds selection, but the rollback issue alone justifies a partial-circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on a hand-tuned set of governance hyperparameters (C, τ, N_min, thresholds) and the default human-written meta-skill. The theoretical non-divergence claim rests on two strong assumptions about the Router and estimator that are not checked against the implementation.

free parameters (9)
  • active-cap C = 50 (Default; 100 in A7)
    Chosen by hand to bound the active bank; A7 tests 100 and finds similar mean with higher variance.
  • retirement threshold τ = 0.10
    Hand-set; skill retired when contribution score ≤ −0.10; A4 harsh sets 0.0.
  • evidence floor N_min = 100 trials
    Hand-set; required before retirement can fire; A4 sets 20.
  • pattern canonicalisation threshold = 0.85 cosine
    Union-find collapse threshold for pattern labels; A5 sets 1.0 (off).
  • already-covered / bank-dedup thresholds = 0.85 cosine
    Duplicate-skip thresholds; A6 disables cover-guard.
  • synth lookback window W = 6 rounds
    Evidence window for clustering verdicts.
  • min cluster size for synthesis = 3 failures
    A cluster must have ≥3 verdicts sharing a pattern before a skill is born.
  • default MBPP+ meta-skill = human-authored Markdown
    The authoring prior shipped ACTIVE at round 0; removed in A3; hand-written by the authors, so part of the gain depends on a human-provided guide.
  • rollback threshold / persistence = τ_rb=0.10; 5 consecutive regressions
    Hand-set; triggers snapshot restore; not ablated.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Router is retrieval-consistent (Prop 1, assumption i): conditional on a task x it selects either NONE or some s∈S_t, and injecting NONE produces p0(x).
    Stated in Sec 3.5; unverified against the learned Router.
  • domain assumption Curator's ĉ is an unbiased consistent estimator of c(s) (Prop 1, assumption ii).
    Sec 3.5; contradicted by the implemented estimator (computed only on routed tasks), so the bounding proposition doesn't hold for the deployed system.
  • standard math Hoeffding bound applies to per-trial pass/fail outcomes after N_min trials.
    Used in Sec 3.5 numerical instantiation.
  • domain assumption The base model's no-skill pass probability p0(x) is stable across rounds and independent of library state.
    Required for the rolling-gain comparison; plausible but not measured per round with skills absent.
  • domain assumption The meta-skill authoring prior induces enough stylistic homogeneity that explicit deduplication is subsumed at this scale.
    Core explanation for A5/A6; explicitly scale-dependent (Sec 5), so not a universal law.
  • domain assumption Pitfall-oriented skills inherit the guardrails-beat-guidance effect from Ref 6.
    Claims transfer from L3 rule systems to L2 skills; cited from the authors' own prior work.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14076 in / 15204 out tokens · 153482 ms · 2026-08-02T13:24:55.873642+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Self-evolving skill libraries, pioneered by Voyager, let frozen LLM agents accumulate reusable knowledge without weight updates, yet recent evaluation shows that LLM-authored skills deliver $+0.0$pp over no-skill baselines while human-curated ones deliver $+16.2$pp: the bottleneck is not skill authoring but lifecycle management. We introduce \textbf{Ratchet}, a single-agent loop in which a frozen LLM writes, retrieves, curates, and retires its own natural-language skills. Ratchet integrates four candidate hygiene mechanisms: outcome-driven retirement, a bounded active-cap, meta-skill authoring guidance, and pattern canonicalisation. On MBPP+ hard-100 with Claude Opus 4.7, Ratchet lifts held-out pass@1 from a $0.258 \pm 0.047$ baseline to a late-window rolling mean of $0.584$ (peak $0.658 \pm 0.042$) across 100 rounds and 3 seeds, a $+0.328 \pm 0.018$ rolling-mean gain where the no-skill control drifts at $+0.002 \pm 0.005$; the same recipe transfers to an agentic solver on SWE-bench Verified ($+0.22$ peak lift over 20~rounds). Eight ablations (A1--A8) reveal that the minimal working recipe is smaller than our design suggests: retirement and the meta-skill authoring prior are load-bearing, while explicit deduplication (canonicalisation, cover-guard) is subsumed by the meta-skill itself. A non-divergence proposition shows that bounded cap and retirement threshold together keep expected performance from drifting below the no-skill floor by more than a fixed margin, bounding library drift rather than guaranteeing improvement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22148 by Bing Zhu, Guanghui Wang, Peiyang He, Wei Qiu, Xing Zhang, Yanwei Cui, Ziyuan Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Ratchet loop. Inference (top): each task flows through Router→Solver→Grader→ Capsule. Memory (middle): three append-only stores (Skill Bank, Meta-Skill, Evidence Log). Reflection (bottom): every round the Critic labels failures, the Synthesizer writes new skills from failure clusters, and the Curator retires under-performers. Solid arrows = data flow; dashed = memory reads/writes. library; A3 (no-meta)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Held-out pass@1 by round on MBPP+ hard-100, averaged over 3 seeds ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Who Grades the Grader? Co-Evolving Evaluation Metrics and Skills for Self-Improving LLM Agents

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    An evaluation metric evolved from ten reference examples beat hidden unit tests on code generation and sufficed to drive a self-improving skill loop, while an unguarded version collapsed into an always-pass grader tha...

  2. Who Grades the Grader? Co-Evolving Evaluation Metrics and Skills for Self-Improving LLM Agents

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    Double Ratchet co-evolves transparent metrics from small anchors with a skill lifecycle, recovering 88–110% of the lift that ground-truth or best rubrics would enable.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 14 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291, 2023

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    SkillsBench: Benchmarking how well agent skills work across diverse tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12670, 2026

    Xiangyi Li, Wenbo Chen, Yimin Liu, Shenghan Zheng, Xiaokun Chen, Yifeng He, Yubo Li, Bingran You, Haotian Shen, Jiankai Sun, et al. SkillsBench: Benchmarking how well agent skills work across diverse tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12670, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Ex- perience compression spectrum: Unifying memory, skills, and rules in LLM agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.15877, 2026

    Xing Zhang, Guanghui Wang, Yanwei Cui, Wei Qiu, Ziyuan Li, Bing Zhu, and Peiyang He. Ex- perience compression spectrum: Unifying memory, skills, and rules in LLM agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.15877, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Patil, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E

    Charles Packer, Sarah Wooders, Kevin Lin, Vivian Fang, Shishir G. Patil, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. MemGPT: Towards LLMs as operating systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08560, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Do agent rules shape or distort? guardrails beat guidance in coding agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.11088, 2026

    Xing Zhang, Guanghui Wang, Yanwei Cui, Wei Qiu, Ziyuan Li, Bing Zhu, and Peiyang He. Do agent rules shape or distort? guardrails beat guidance in coding agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.11088, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Richard S. Sutton. The bitter lesson. http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson. html, 2019. Blog post, March 13, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    ExpeL: LLM agents are experiential learners

    Andrew Zhao, Daniel Huang, Quentin Xu, Matthieu Lin, Yong-Jin Liu, and Gao Huang. ExpeL: LLM agents are experiential learners. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2024. 9

    2024

  9. [9]

    AutoManual: Generating instruction manuals by LLM agents via interactive environmental learning

    Minghao Chen, Yihang Li, Yanting Yang, Shiyu Yu, Binbin Lin, and Xiaofei He. AutoManual: Generating instruction manuals by LLM agents via interactive environmental learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Ng, Daishi Harada, and Stuart Russell

    Andrew Y . Ng, Daishi Harada, and Stuart Russell. Policy invariance under reward transformations: Theory and application to reward shaping.International Conference on Machine Learning, 1999

    1999

  11. [11]

    Is your code generated by chatgpt really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023

    Jiawei Liu, Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yuyao Wang, and Lingming Zhang. Is your code generated by chatgpt really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, et al. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023

    2023

  13. [13]

    Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Joshi, Hanna Moazam, Heather Miller, Matei Zaharia, and Christopher Potts

    Omar Khattab, Arnav Singhvi, Paridhi Maheshwari, Zhiyuan Zhang, Keshav Santhanam, Sri Vardhamanan, Saiful Haq, Ashutosh Sharma, Thomas T. Joshi, Hanna Moazam, Heather Miller, Matei Zaharia, and Christopher Potts. DSPy: Compiling declarative language model calls into self-improving pipelines.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03714, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Le, Denny Zhou, and Xinyun Chen

    Chengrun Yang, Xuezhi Wang, Yifeng Lu, Hanxiao Liu, Quoc V . Le, Denny Zhou, and Xinyun Chen. Large language models as optimizers. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    differentiation

    Mert Yuksekgonul, Federico Bianchi, Joseph Boen, Sheng Liu, Zhi Huang, Carlos Guestrin, and James Zou. TextGrad: Automatic “differentiation” via text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07496, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    O’Brien, Carrie J

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph C. O’Brien, Carrie J. Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 2023

    2023

  18. [18]

    Self-evolving LLM agents through an experience-driven lifecycle

    Rong Wu, Xiaoman Wang, Jianbiao Mei, Pinlong Cai, Daocheng Fu, Cheng Yang, Licheng Wen, Xuemeng Yang, Yufan Shen, Yuxin Wang, et al. Self-evolving LLM agents through an experience-driven lifecycle. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.16079, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Trace2Skill: Parallel inductive skill distillation for LLM agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25158, 2026

    Jingwei Ni, Yihao Liu, Xinpeng Liu, Yutao Sun, Mengyu Zhou, Pengyu Cheng, Dexin Wang, Xiaoxi Jiang, and Guanjun Jiang. Trace2Skill: Parallel inductive skill distillation for LLM agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25158, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    CAS- CADE: Cumulative agentic skill creation through autonomous development and evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23880, 2025

    Xu Huang, Junwu Chen, Yuxing Fei, Zhuohan Li, Philippe Schwaller, and Gerbrand Ceder. CAS- CADE: Cumulative agentic skill creation through autonomous development and evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23880, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    AutoSkill: Experience-driven lifelong learning via skill self-evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01145, 2026

    Yutao Yang, Junsong Li, Qianjun Pan, Bihao Zhan, Yuxuan Cai, Lin Du, Jie Zhou, Kai Chen, Qin Chen, Xin Li, et al. AutoSkill: Experience-driven lifelong learning via skill self-evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01145, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    SkillRL: Evolving agents via recursive skill-augmented reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08234, 2026

    Peng Xia, Jianwen Chen, Hanyang Wang, Jiaqi Liu, Kaide Zeng, Yu Wang, Siwei Han, Yiyang Zhou, Xujiang Zhao, Haifeng Chen, et al. SkillRL: Evolving agents via recursive skill-augmented reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08234, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    From skill text to skill structure: The scheduling- structural-logical representation for agent skills.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.24026, 2026

    Qiliang Liang, Hansi Wang, Zhong Liang, and Yang Liu. From skill text to skill structure: The scheduling- structural-logical representation for agent skills.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.24026, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    From procedural skills to strategy genes: Towards experience-driven test-time evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.15097, 2026

    Junjie Wang, Yiming Ren, and Haoyang Zhang. From procedural skills to strategy genes: Towards experience-driven test-time evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.15097, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Agent workflow memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07429, 2024

    Zora Zhiruo Wang, Jiayuan Mao, Daniel Fried, and Graham Neubig. Agent workflow memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07429, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P. Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Judging LLM- as-a-judge with MT-bench and chatbot arena. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, 2023. 10

    2023

  27. [27]

    Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al

    James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A. Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(13):3521–3526, 2017

    2017

  28. [28]

    Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, and Charles Sutton. Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge- intensive nlp tasks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459–9474, 2020

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge- intensive nlp tasks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459–9474, 2020

    2020

  30. [30]

    Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan

    Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 11 A Hyperparameters and runtime configuration Each ablation (A1–A8) overrides exactly the knob named after it and holds ev...

    2024

  31. [31]

    For every task in the 378-task split, run Claude Opus 4.7 under a no-skill baseline across 5 probe seeds (independent of the 3 experiment seeds), recording each seed’s pass/fail

  32. [32]

    Retain the remainder (those that fail at least once); these are the tasks where a skill library could plausibly help

    Discard tasks the baseline solves on all 5 seeds (∼273 tasks), since a skill library cannot possibly improve on an already-saturated task. Retain the remainder (those that fail at least once); these are the tasks where a skill library could plausibly help

  33. [33]

    The resulting subset is 100 tasks (60 train, 40 eval) and is consumed verbatim by every run in this paper

    Randomly sample 100 tasks from the retained pool (fixed random seed for reproducibility); split 60/40 into train and eval subsets. The resulting subset is 100 tasks (60 train, 40 eval) and is consumed verbatim by every run in this paper. Reporting on a fixed hard subset lets round-0 capsules be directly comparable across conditions; reporting on the full ...

  34. [34]

    Run the Claude Code agent (no skills) on all 500 tasks across 5 probe seeds (independent of the 3 experiment seeds); discard tasks solved on every seed

  35. [35]

    to avoid pitfall P on tasks where X, do Y and verify Z

    From the retained pool, sample 150 tasks stratified by repository (10 repos) and difficulty, using a fixed random seed; split 90/60 into train and eval subsets. C Skill and meta-skill schemas A skill is a dataclass with the following fields: id: str # snake_case, LLM-proposed name: str # short human label version: str # incremented on resynth intent: str ...