{ "schema_version": 1, "builder_plan": { "scenario": "An agent looks good in demos, but you cannot tell which product tasks it fails.", "change": "Use the study's evaluation idea to inspect a small set of tasks with human-checked answers.", "baseline": "Your current evaluator and a manually reviewed reference set.", "steps": [ "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.", "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.", "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.", "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test." ], "measure": "Agreement with human review, missed failures, false alarms, and evaluation cost per task.", "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation." }, "builder_review": null, "arxiv_id": "2609.30120", "title": "Evaluating Agent Skills for Version-Specific Plugin Migration: A Retrospective Study", "summary": "Replaces reliance on a single aggregate reward or diagnostic score for evaluating agent skills with a traceable, criterion-level review that ties decisions to contract domains, executable probes, and blind re-grading by judges from other model families. Costs are grading and review effort: deep manual review of reports, executable probe construction, and multiple judge passes, all feasible on a single GPU or via third-party APIs. Can fail because gains concentrate in one task, many tasks sit at the ceiling, grading errors bias either arm, and judge choice alone shifts the estimated gain from near zero to over ten points.", "rationale": "The paper offers a low-cost evaluation discipline the reader can apply to their own agent skills, but its central finding is that measured gains are fragile to rubric and judge choice, so adoption decisions require workload-specific validation.", "technique": "Traceable rubric-based evaluation of agent migration skills", "family": "avaliacao_de_agente", "recommendation": "testar", "published": "2026-09-24", "as_of": "2026-10-18", "editorial_status": "indexed", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30120", "independent_implementations": 0, "total_implementations": 1, "stars": 281, "citations": 0, "claims": [ { "claim_id": "claim-01", "statement": "Replaces reliance on a single aggregate reward or diagnostic score for evaluating agent skills with a traceable, criterion-level review that ties decisions to contract domains, executable probes, and blind re-grading by judges from other model families. Costs are grading and review effort: deep manual review of reports, executable probe construction, and multiple judge passes, all feasible on a single GPU or via third-party APIs. Can fail because gains concentrate in one task, many tasks sit at the ceiling, grading errors bias either arm, and judge choice alone shifts the estimated gain from near zero to over ten points.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30120", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "claim_id": "claim-02", "statement": "Adding the plugin-upgrade skill raises mean recorded reward from 93.83 to 98.75 (+4.92 points, 95% task-bootstrap CI [0.31, 10.86]); cross-family judge re-grading yields gains of 10.63 and 6.09 points, indicating sensitivity to the judge.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30120", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "exposure_map": [ { "dimension": "quality", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compute", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "latency", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "operations", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compatibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "security", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "data_and_training", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "reproducibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "risks": [], "minimum_test": [], "open_questions": [], "independent_tests": [], "lab_reproductions": [], "report_available": false, "validation_tier": "unknown", "evidence_tier": "unknown", "infrastructure_basis": "unknown", "equations": [], "equations_status": "not_fetched", "core_kind": "", "equations_fetched_at": "", "equations_source_url": "", "equations_source_sha256": "", "exposures_reviewed_at": "", "exposures_source_sha256": "" }