CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1AI-based Problem Solving and PlanningEvolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Evo-Harness: Context-to-Harness Skill Compilation for Self-Evolving Agents

Open access
Wei, Tianxin, Shi, Zhan, Lin, Minhua, He, Bing, Liu, Zewen, Sang, Yisi, Bei, Yuanchen, Ning, Xuying +9 more·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2608.15071arXiv 2608.15071
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Learning from experience is critical for developing capable, self-improving large language model (LLM) agents. Existing methods typically extract knowledge from accumulated trajectories via reflection, memory, rules, or skills. However, agents in realistic environments continuously encounter novel tasks, often offering only a one-shot opportunity to improve. These executions yield rich but highly noisy contexts, entangling broadly useful lessons with task-specific artifacts. Critically, prior works rarely validate their effectiveness on complex real-world tasks or isolate the underlying drivers of improvement. To address these gaps, we formulate online harness learning, where a frozen agent improves by continually updating a structured harness across sequential tasks. This formulation enables a systematic study of key self-improvement factors through our proposed Evo-Harness. At its core, context-to-harness skill compilation distills noisy, single-shot executions into reusable skill harnesses for cross-domain and topic-level adaptation. To demonstrate the efficacy of one-shot skill compilation, we evaluate across five realistic benchmarks (TerminalBench2, SWE-bench, CL-Bench, -bench, WebArena-Infinity). Our extensive analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of Evo-Harness and provides a principled understanding of how LLM agents can effectively learn on the fly. Our code is available at https://github.com/A-EVO-Lab/a-evolve/tree/release/evo-harness.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Evo-Harness formulates online harness learning, where a frozen LLM agent improves across sequential tasks by compiling noisy one-shot execution contexts into a reusable external skill harness. Across five realistic benchmarks, it outperforms no-evolution and prior experience-based baselines, with analyses isolating evolver design, feedback type, and transfer effects.

Key findings

  • With Claude Opus 4.6 as solver, EVO-HARNESS achieved the best scores across all five benchmarks: CL-Bench 34.02, TerminalBench-2 73.03, SWE-bench Lite 67.00, τ-bench 76.97, and WebArena-Infinity 76.25, improving over No-Evolve and the strongest baseline XSkill on every benchmark.
  • On CL-Bench across models, gains over No-Evolve were +3.7 for Opus 4.7, +4.5 for Opus 4.6, +3.8 for Opus 4.5, +1.1 for Kimi-K2.5, and +0.8 for GPT-OSS; Procedural Task Execution improved by +9.8 for both Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.5.
  • On SWE-bench Lite, No-Evolve reached 68.8, Train-Split Transfer 73.4, and Online-Updated 75.0; solver-evolver pairing showed Opus solver Cross 76.0 vs Same 75.3 vs No-Evolve 70.7, while Sonnet solver Same 55.3 and Cross 55.7 were below No-Evolve 58.0.
  • Self-Generated feedback underperformed No-Evolve on CL-Bench (29.54 to 27.96) and SWE-bench Lite (63.67 to 61.67); Standard feedback was best on CL-Bench (34.02 vs Minimal 29.86), but Minimal was slightly above Standard on SWE-bench Lite (67.33 vs 67.00). Ablations showed Topic Only 33.70 vs full 34.02 on CL-Bench, and General Only 66.67 vs full 67.00 on SWE-bench Lite.

Methods

  • Online harness learning: a frozen solver improves by updating an external structured harness across sequential task batches; it selects and injects harness entries, executes tasks, reflects failures into candidate memories, and an evolver applies ADD, MERGE, REVISE, or SKIP to compile general cross-task patterns and topic-level procedures.
  • Evaluated on five benchmarks: WebArena-Infinity (80 tasks), TerminalBench2 (89), SWE-bench Lite (300), CL-Bench (1899), and TAU-Bench (165); default solver and evolver was Claude Opus 4.6, with Claude Opus 4.7/4.5, Kimi-K2.5, and GPT-OSS used for model ablations; metric is success rate in percent.
  • Implementation details: batch size 16, maximum 5 general skills and 5 skills per task-type topic, harness stored as Markdown skill files with YAML metadata, Claude Sonnet 4.5 used for harness selection, fixed seed 42, and results averaged over three runs.

Limitations

  • Stated: the study focuses on single-agent LLM systems in text-based, tool-use, web, command-line, and software-engineering environments, and does not evaluate embodied agents or multi-agent systems.
  • Stated: the harness is instantiated with natural-language guidance; other harness formats such as executable code skills or structured programs are not covered.
  • Evident/acknowledged: Appendix B notes the examples are not single-skill causal ablations because several skills may be injected together and some benchmarks do not record injected skills in every result file; the evaluation is also limited to five benchmarks and specific model/API configurations, with total API cost on the order of $100K.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2608.15071

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

3 of 6 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Memory systems largely treat memory as a passive information store.

    “However, these approaches largely treat memory as a passive information store.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Zhong et al., 2024 source

      The paper describes MemoryBank as more than a passive store. Section 2 describes storage, retrieval, and an updater; §2.3 says recalled memories are reinforced while less important memories may be forgotten. That is contrary to the characterization attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Yu et al., 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Xu et al., 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingown data

    The evolved harness reflects benchmark-specific operational demands rather than accumulating generic guidance.

    “The evolved harness reflects benchmark-specific operational demands rather than accumulating generic guidance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    CL-Bench produces a broader distribution including domain reasoning and output-constraint handling.

    “CL-Bench produces a broader distribution including domain reasoning and output-constraint handling.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Compared with the strongest baseline, XSkill, EVO-HARNESS still improves on every benchmark.

    “Compared with the strongest baseline, XSkill, EVO-HARNESS still improves on every benchmark.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    TerminalBench-2 emphasizes verification and recovery.

    “TerminalBench-2 emphasizes verification and recovery”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 21
  • May combine two claims. 37
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Existing experience-based methods extract knowledge from accumulated trajectories offline using media such as reflection, memory, and skills.

    “Existing methods typically extract knowledge from accumulated trajectories via reflection, memory, rules, or skills.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Shinn et al., 2023 source

      Section 3 (p. 3) describes Reflexion analyzing a trajectory to produce a verbal summary stored in memory, supporting reflection and memory as ways to learn from experience. The cited passages do not establish that existing methods typically extract knowledge offline, or that they do so through rules or skills. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Zhao et al., 2024 source

      Sections 4.1–4.3 describe ExpeL collecting trajectories during training, using reflection, storing successful trajectories for later retrieval, and extracting insights before evaluation. They support the general idea of learning from accumulated experience, but do not establish that existing methods typically do this or describe skills as a medium of extraction; reflection in ExpeL also occurs during retries, not solely offline. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Zhang et al., 2026a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On SWE-bench Lite, Minimal feedback reaches 67.33, slightly above Standard feedback at 67.00.

    “On SWE-bench Lite, however, Minimal feedback reaches 67.33, slightly above Standard feedback at 67.00.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No Propose improves over No Evolve but remains below the full method.

    “No Propose improves over No Evolve but remains below the full method”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    EVO-HARNESS improves over both No-Evolve and prior experience-based baselines across all five benchmarks.

    “EVO-HARNESS improves over both No-Evolve and prior experience-based baselines across all five benchmarks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The full EVO-HARNESS setting performs best on both CL-Bench and SWE-bench Lite.

    “The full EVO-HARNESS setting performs best on both benchmarks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Empirical Discovery & Simulation (EDS) shows less stable gains, with drops for Opus 4.6 and GPT-OSS.

    “Empirical Discovery & Simulation (EDS) shows less stable gains, with drops for Opus 4.6 and GPT-OSS.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On SWE-bench Lite, General Only reaches 66.67, close to the full result of 67.00, while Topic Only reaches 64.33.

    “On SWE-bench Lite, General Only reaches 66.67, close to the full result of 67.00, while Topic Only reaches 64.33”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On CL-Bench, Topic Only reaches 33.70, close to the full result of 34.02, while General Only drops to 30.28.

    “On CL-Bench, Topic Only reaches 33.70, close to the full result of 34.02, while General Only drops to 30.28”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On CL-Bench, Standard feedback performs best, reaching 34.02, while Minimal feedback reaches only 29.86.

    “On CL-Bench, Standard feedback performs best, reaching 34.02, while Minimal feedback reaches only 29.86.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For the Opus solver, Cross reaches 76.0, slightly higher than Same at 75.3 and clearly above No-Evolve at 70.7.

    “For the Opus solver, Cross reaches 76.0, slightly higher than Same at 75.3 and clearly above No-Evolve at 70.7.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For the Sonnet solver, Same and Cross reach 55.3 and 55.7, both below No-Evolve at 58.0.

    “For the Sonnet solver, however, Same and Cross reach 55.3 and 55.7, both below No-Evolve at 58.0.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The most consistent improvements across categories appear on Procedural Task Execution (PTE), where every model improves and Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.5 each gain +9.8 points.

    “the most consistent improvements appear on Procedural Task Execution (PTE), where every model improves and Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.5 each gain +9.8 points.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Opus 4.7, Opus 4.6, and Opus 4.5 obtain gains of +3.7, +4.5, and +3.8, respectively, while Kimi-K2.5 and GPT-OSS improve by +1.1 and +0.8.

    “Opus 4.7, Opus 4.6, and Opus 4.5 obtain gains of +3.7, +4.5, and +3.8, respectively, while Kimi-K2.5 and GPT-OSS improve by +1.1 and +0.8.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Skills learned on a training split can transfer across both tasks and models, while online updating performs best.

    “Skills learned on a training split can transfer across both tasks and models, while online updating performs best.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both broad cross-task guidance and localized task-type guidance are useful, but their importance depends on the task setting.

    “Both broad cross-task guidance and localized task-type guidance are useful, but their importance depends on the task setting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Self-Generated feedback underperforms No-Evolve on both CL-Bench and SWE-bench Lite, decreasing CL-Bench from 29.54 to 27.96 and SWE-bench Lite from 63.67 to 61.67.

    “Self-Generated feedback underperforms No-Evolve on both benchmarks, decreasing CL-Bench from 29.54 to 27.96 and SWEbench Lite from 63.67 to 61.67.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No-Evolve reaches 68.8, Train-Split Transfer reaches 73.4, and Online-Updated reaches 75.0.

    “No-Evolve reaches 68.8, Train-Split Transfer reaches 73.4, and Online-Updated reaches 75.0.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Minimal and Standard feedback both use environment-provided signals and are more reliable overall.

    “In contrast, Minimal and Standard feedback both use environment-provided signals and are more reliable overall.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    EVO-HARNESS improves over No Evolve on CL-Bench, TerminalBench-2, SWE-bench Lite, τ-bench, and WebArena-Infinity.

    “No Evolve | 29.54 | 62.92 | 63.67 | 72.73 | 72.50”
    • Also stated in: § H.2 Discuss The License For Artifacts · plain
      “EVO-HARNESS | 34.02 | 73.03 | 67.00 | 76.97 | 76.25”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Django and Sympy account for 66.7% of SWE-bench fail-to-pass cases.

    “Django and Sympy account for 66.7% of SWEbench fail-to-pass cases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Retail workflows account for 85.2% of TAU-Bench fail-to-pass cases; this guidance appears in 100% of improved runs.

    “Retail workflows account for 85.2% of TAU-Bench fail-to-pass cases; this guidance appears in 100% of improved runs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    EVO-HARNESS achieves higher pass rates than No Propose, General Only, and Topic Only on CL-Bench and SWE-bench Lite.

    “No Propose | 33.28 | 65.33”
    • Also stated in: § H.2 Discuss The License For Artifacts · plain
      “General Only | 30.28 | 66.67”
    • Also stated in: § H.2 Discuss The License For Artifacts · plain
      “Topic Only | 33.70 | 64.33”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    EVO-HARNESS achieves success rates of 34.02% on CL-Bench, 73.03% on TerminalBench-2, 67.00% on SWE-bench Lite, 76.97% on τ-bench, and 76.25% on WebArena-Infinity.

    “EVO-HARNESS | 34.02 | 73.03 | 67.00 | 76.97 | 76.25”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Settings-state tasks account for 24% of WebArena fail-to-pass cases; related UI skills appear in 72% of improved runs.

    “Settings-state tasks account for 24% of We-bArena fail-to-pass cases; related UI skills appear in 72% of improved runs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Rule, procedural, and domain-knowledge contexts dominate CL-Bench fail-to-pass cases.

    “Rule, procedural, and domain-knowledge contexts dominate CL-Bench fail-to-pass cases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Standard feedback yields the highest CL-Bench pass rate (34.02%), while Minimal feedback yields the highest SWE-bench Lite pass rate (67.33%).

    “Standard | 34.02 | 67.00”
    • Also stated in: § H.2 Discuss The License For Artifacts · plain
      “Minimal | 29.86 | 67.33”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Retrieved or evolved guidance can be noisy, overly specific, or mismatched to the solver.

    “suggesting that retrieved or evolved guidance can be noisy, overly specific, or mismatched to the solver.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Using the same model for solving and evolution is not always optimal; cross-model evolution can help, but only when the solver is capable of using the evolved guidance.

    “Using the same model for solving and evolution is not always optimal; cross-model evolution can help, but only when the solver is capable of using the evolved guidance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisereasoning

    Skills differ fundamentally from memory because they encode operational knowledge.

    “Skills differ fundamentally because they encode operational knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Standard feedback is generally preferable, but the useful granularity of feedback depends on the benchmark.

    “Standard feedback is generally preferable, but the useful granularity of feedback depends on the benchmark.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Sonnet-evolved skills can help Opus, but do not necessarily help Sonnet itself.

    “Thus, Sonnet-evolved skills can help Opus, but do not necessarily help Sonnet itself.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    The study focuses on single-agent LLM systems in text-based, tool-use, web, command-line, and software-engineering environments.

    “Our study focuses on single-agent LLM systems in text-based, tool-use, web, command-line, and software-engineering environments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisereasoning

    A harness acts as an external scaffold that structurally shapes future planning.

    “a harness acts as an external scaffold that structurally shapes future planning”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Harness transfer depends not only on the skill artifact but also on the base solver's capability: if the solver cannot reliably follow, contextualize, or adapt the guidance, evolution may fail to improve performance.

    “This contrast suggests that harness transfer depends not only on the skill artifact but also on the base solver's capability: if the solver cannot reliably follow, contextualize, or adapt the guidance, evolution may fail to improve performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Failures expose the solver's current boundary: incorrect assumptions, missing constraints, ineffective tool use, weak verification, and failed recovery.

    “We focus reflection on failures because they expose the solver's current boundary: incorrect assumptions, missing constraints, ineffective tool use, weak verification, and failed recovery.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The harness is instantiated with natural-language guidance; other harness formats such as executable code skills or structured programs are not covered.

    “We also instantiate the harness with naturallanguage guidance; other harness formats, such as executable code skills or structured programs, are not covered in this study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The study does not evaluate embodied agents or multi-agent systems.

    “We do not evaluate embodied agents or multi-agent systems”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    For statistical reliability, we report results over the full task set for each benchmark rather than subsampling.

    “For statistical reliability, we report results over the full task set for each benchmark rather than subsampling.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Reported numerical results come from the experimental code and are checked by the authors.

    “Reported numerical results come from the experimental code and are checked by the authors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    AI assistant tools were used for polishing manuscript. They were not used to decide scientific claims, select reported results, or replace author verification.

    “AI assistant tools were used for polishing manuscript.They were not used to decide scientific claims, select reported results, or replace author verification.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The learned artifact is inspectable and easy to transfer across runs.

    “making the learned artifact inspectable and easy to transfer across runs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    We report pass rate (%) as the primary metric across all benchmarks.

    “We report pass rate (%) as the primary metric across all benchmarks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Focusing reflection on failures makes candidate memories more targeted for harness improvement, while avoiding unnecessary updates from successful executions that may contain task-specific details.

    “This makes the resulting candidate memories more targeted for harness improvement, while avoiding unnecessary updates from successful executions that may contain task-specific details.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The budget encourages the evolver to merge overlapping guidance and avoid accumulating overly detailed or task-specific records.

    “This budget encourages the evolver to merge overlapping guidance and avoid accumulating overly detailed or task-specific records.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    These models are not used to create new benchmark labels or to fabricate experimental results.

    “These models are not used to create new benchmark labels or to fabricate experimental results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    We do not modify the benchmarks themselves.

    “We do not modify the benchmarks themselves.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    We use fixed random seeds (42) for task shuffling to ensure reproducibility.

    “We use fixed random seeds (42) for task shuffling to ensure reproducibility.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The performance is averaged over three runs.

    “The performance is averaged over three runs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    This paper studies LLMs as the research object and uses frozen LLM backbones for experimental inference.

    “This paper studies LLMs as the research object and uses frozen LLM backbones for experimental inference.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
49 of 49

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Prior methods often fail to rigorously validate their effectiveness under realistic online constraints, nor do they systematically isolate the underlying drivers of agent improvement.

    “Critically, prior methods often fail to rigorously validate their effectiveness under these realistic constraints, nor do they systematically isolate the underlying drivers of agent improvement.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Agents in realistic environments continuously encounter novel tasks, often offering only a one-shot opportunity to improve.

    “agents in realistic environments continuously encounter novel tasks, often offering only a one-shot opportunity to improve.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Real executions produce rich but highly noisy contexts, entangling useful lessons with task-specific details, partial failures, and incidental tool traces.

    “real executions produce rich but highly noisy contexts, entangling useful lessons with task-specific details, partial failures, and incidental tool traces.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    When an agent fails on a task, the failure often remains an isolated event rather than a source of future improvement.

    “when an agent fails on a task, the failure often remains an isolated event rather than a source of future improvement.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Without converting failed executions into reusable lessons, agents continue to make similar mistakes in later tasks.

    “Without converting failed executions into reusable lessons, agents continue to make similar mistakes in later tasks.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Simple retrieval of past experiences falls short for one-shot, complex learning environments.

    “relying on the simple retrieval of past experiences falls short.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The benchmarks use synthetic or sanitized scenarios.

    “The benchmarks use synthetic or sanitized scenarios.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    None of the benchmarks contain personally identifying information or offensive content.

    “To our knowledge, none contain personally identifying information or offensive content.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In practical online streams, agents encounter tasks sequentially, yielding rich but one-shot execution experiences.

    “In practical online streams, agents encounter tasks sequentially, yielding rich but one-shot execution experiences.”
9 of 9

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Reflection prompt includes existing skills despite stated separation from the harness

    Minor

    The method says reflection does not compare an execution against the current harness, but the solver-side proposal prompt takes related existing skills as input and asks whether to create or enhance a skill.

1 of 1

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2024. τ -bench: A benchmark for tool- agent-user interaction in real-world domains, 2024. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2406.12045, 1(3).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wei, T., Shi, Z., Lin, M., He, B., Liu, Z., Sang, Y., Bei, Y., Ning, X., Zou, J., Li, T.-W., Lin, X., Zhao, Y., Wang, C., Dumoulin, B., Wang, D., He, J., & Lu, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Amazon (United States) (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2608.15071
arXiv
2608.15071
OpenAlex
W7203696678
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
self-evolving agents, LLM agents, cross-domain adaptation

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-24.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-24.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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