It is shown that borderline task difficulty is agent-specific (Spearman rho=0.75), offering a candidate explanation for prior contradictions: single-agent studies draw tasks from different agents'informative bands.
Abstract
Persistent context files (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md) are standard practice for guiding AI coding agents, yet evidence for their effectiveness is contradictory. We present a controlled ablation of context-injection strategy across two frontier agents (Claude Code and Codex), 17 real tasks from 3 repositories (15 shared + 2 Codex-only), and 288 evaluated runs with gold-test evaluation. Context strategy does not measurably move correctness on either agent (bounded to<=10-15pp via equivalence testing). A failure-mode triage reveals why: agents fail on implementation skill---feature design, pattern selection, exact wiring---not missing repository knowledge that a context file could supply; a manipulation probe confirms the real AGENTS.md never converts a near-miss to a pass on either agent. We further show that borderline task difficulty is agent-specific (Spearman rho=0.75), offering a candidate explanation for prior contradictions: single-agent studies draw tasks from different agents'informative bands. We release all code, data, and analysis.
Modern coding agents expose multiple tool surfaces -- IDE primitives, bash, and Model Context Protocol (MCP) code-execution -- and the field has shipped three contradictory claims about which one matters. We run the missing crossed comparison: an integrity-clean three-arm ablation (baseline / bash_only / code_only) on synthetic computation tasks and SWE-bench Mini modification tasks, holding model, harness, and prompts fixed, with two agents (Claude Code, OpenAI Codex CLI) so the comparison spans both regime and agent-design axes. Across the four resulting (regime, agent) cells, restricting the agent to a single execute_code MCP tool is cheaper than -- or statistically tied with -- its cheapest tool-rich rival in three cells (significantly on Artifact/Claude and SWE-bench/Codex; directionally on Artifact/Codex), with pass rates statistically tied within each cell. The lone exception is SWE-bench/Claude, where code_only is directionally costlier (+14.4%, not significant); a conditional-cost analysis localizes that gap to failure-cost on doomed-run trajectories, not a per-edit tax on successful runs. Two implications: the cheapest tool surface is jointly determined by task regime and agent design rather than by either axis alone, and the headline cost signal lives in cache-adjusted cost -- not pass rate, which is invariant across surfaces at the model sizes we evaluate. The benchmark harness, task suite, and analysis code are available at https://github.com/hyang0129/onlycodes.
Agent Skills are reusable procedural modules that are increasingly injected into coding-agent sessions to encode framework conventions, anti-patterns, and reusable tools. However, because each injected Skill expands the prompt of every query, an effective Skill benchmark must determine not only whether an agent can solve a task, but whether the Skill should have been injected at all. We introduce WebDev-Skills-Bench and use it for a controlled empirical study of 31 public WebDev Skills on 50 Web-Bench projects and 1,000 ordered tasks. The benchmark compares four matched conditions, including a length-matched irrelevant control and leave-one-out component ablations. To isolate Skill effects from prompt-length artifacts, we place only SKILL.md in the prompt while mounting auxiliary files into the agent workspace. Across four models, target Skill injection reduces mean Pass@2 by 1.3% to 4.2%, lowers task completion depth, and increases token cost by 72% to 394%, with gains in only 17% to 36% of Skill-project pairs. Length-matched controls reveal two failure modes: some models are length-distracted, where an equally long irrelevant Skill reproduces most of the loss, while others are content-misled, where prompt length is neutral but Skill content still lowers Pass@2 by 1.1% to 1.4%. Further analysis shows that losses concentrate on easy early tasks, Skill rankings transfer weakly across models, and anti-pattern rules outperform example-heavy content within helpful Skills. These findings recast a matched Skill as a hypothesis about a particular Skill-project-model triple rather than a portable asset, reframing injection as a per-deployment routing decision and making length-matched controls and per-model audits a minimum standard for Agent-Skill evaluation.
Under the current standard, Agent Skills are SKILL.md files that combine instructions with supporting resources, enabling Large Language Model (LLM) agents to reuse procedures beyond a single conversation. Yet many public skills appear to originate from a single task, repository, or conversation, even when they are shared as reusable components. We analyze this gap across 138,133 public SKILL.md files from 20,556 repositories using a two-tier defect taxonomy grounded in the official specification and best-practice guidance. We find that 91.8% of skills contain at least one detected defect, with stable estimates across lenient and strict thresholds (88.8-94.6%). The dominant failures are ordinary packaging problems rather than exotic attacks: weak routing metadata, bloated or non-actionable bodies, and poor resource organization. A deterministic routing stress test over 20,000 skills shows the functional impact: skills with valid routing metadata are retrieved more reliably from startup descriptions than skills with routing defects. Defect rates vary by platform and provenance: specification-aware skills contain fewer defects, while AI-marked skills show more safety and portability problems. Lightweight enforcement and repair experiments support a quality-assured generation workflow combining spec-aware prompting, lightweight linting, automated repair, and safety gating.
Chi Zhang, Yimin Liu, Xinze Chen et al.· 0 citations
These findings establish context measurement as a validated preflight signal for agent reliability and position context engineering as an auditable layer of agent evaluation and governance.
Agent Skills package procedural instructions and checks for use by general-purpose agents, but loading a skill does not guarantee that every requirement remains active throughout a long tool-using trajectory. We study this problem in a production-derived, white-box code-audit workflow. Holding the task and 24 artifact checks fixed, we vary the surrounding context and classify where failures first become visible: lost requirements, editing drift, failed checking, or non-agent evaluator/runtime failures. Codex with gpt-5.4-mini passes 8/10 runs in a 10,991-character clean context but only 3/10 in both a 299,140-character relevant context and an equal-length irrelevant context. This 50-percentage-point difference is large but remains trend-level under two-sided Fisher tests (p = 0.0698). Requirement coverage nevertheless stays above 92% in both long conditions, showing that a few omissions can invalidate an otherwise complete artifact. A second task passes all clean and long runs, so the evidence does not support a universal context-length threshold. A detailed external checklist passes 10/10 runs, compared with 5/10 for a generic self-check (p = 0.0325). Coding-agent scaffolds may help by selecting a smaller working set, but they do not eliminate failures. We do not introduce context rot or a new general monitoring method; we provide a bounded failure classification and empirical case study for white-box code auditing.
Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly automate multi-step engineering and informatics workflows, yet they rarely ask how much effort a task actually requires. They often follow a maximum-context-first strategy--re-reading files and dependencies they have already seen--turning a one-line edit into a small code-base audit. We argue the missing capability is task-aware execution-scope estimation: judging a task's difficulty, the information it truly needs, and the shortest reliable path before committing budget. We formalize minimum-sufficient execution and the Agent Cognitive Redundancy Ratio (ACRR), and propose E3 (Estimate, Execute, Expand): the agent estimates an initial operating point, executes a minimum viable path, and expands scope only when verification fails. On MSE-Bench--a deterministic benchmark of 121 edits in a capability-controlled simulator--E3 matches the strongest baseline's 100% success while cutting cost by 85%, tokens by 91%, and inspected files by 92%, and further beats a strong adaptive retrieval baseline by 16%; the gains survive held-out instruction wording and essentially every cost weighting. A companion real-model harness (LLM-Case) corroborates the effect on a live gpt-4o agent editing a real open-source library, with every candidate patch graded by actually running the project's real pytest suite against a measured oracle: the over-reading is milder but real, and E3 is the leanest and fastest policy at comparable task success--its one shortfall a provider rate-limit, not a wrong edit. We frame this as a controlled probe of execution redundancy, not a measurement of any deployed agent, and position task-aware execution as a step toward engineering-grounded AI (EGAI)--agents whose effort is anchored in the engineering reality of the task. We release the framework and benchmark.