PreprintCited by 1Natural Language Processing TechniquesArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsTopic Modeling

Skilldex: A Package Manager and Registry for Agent Skill Packages with Hierarchical Scope-Based Distribution

Open access
Saha, Sampriti, Hemanth, Pranav·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly extended at runtime via skill packages, structured natural-language instruction bundles loaded from a well-known directory. Community install tooling and registries exist, but two gaps persist: no public tool scores skill packages against Anthropic's published format specification, and no mechanism bundles related skills with the shared context they need to remain mutually coherent. We present Skilldex, a package manager and registry for agent skill packages addressing both gaps. The two novel contributions are: (1) compiler-style format conformance scoring against Anthropic's skill specification, producing line-level diagnostics on description specificity, frontmatter validity, and structural adherence; and (2) the skillset abstraction, a bundled collection of related skills with shared assets (vocabulary files, templates, reference documents) that enforce cross-skill behavioral coherence. Skilldex also provides supporting infrastructure: a three-tier hierarchical scope system, a human-in-the-loop agent suggestion loop, a metadata-only community registry, and a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server. The system is implemented as a TypeScript CLI (skillpm / spm) with a Hono/Supabase registry backend, and is open-source.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2604.16911

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. S. A. Seshia, D. Sadigh, and S. S. Sastry, "Towards verified artificial intelligence," arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08514, 2016. · arXiv
  2. C. Dellarocas and C. A. Wood, "The sound of silence in online feedback: Estimating trading risks in the presence of reporting bias," Management Science, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 460-476, 2008.
  3. J. Cappos, J. Samuel, S. Baker, and J. H. Hartman, "A look in the mirror: Attacks on package managers," in Proc. 15th ACM Conf. Computer and Communications Security (CCS), 2008, pp. 565-574.

Cited by

Authors
Saha, S., & Hemanth, P.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7155076254
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
LLM agents, package management, Model Context Protocol

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review