SkillClaw: Let Skills Evolve Collectively with Agentic Evolver

Multi-user skill evolution requires converting a stream of isolated, heterogeneous interaction sessions into a form that supports cross-user reasoning. SkillClaw does this in two stages: it first structures individual sessions to preserve causal information, then aggregates them into a shared evidence base.

At the system level, SkillClaw connects independently deployed agents through a common skill repository. Each agent has access to the current skill set and produces interaction sessions during normal usage. These sessions are recorded and uploaded as shared evidence. A centralized evolution engine periodically processes the collected sessions, updates the skill repository, and synchronizes the updated skills back to all agents, forming a closed loop:

At inference time, the agent receives a catalogue of available skills in its prompt and can dynamically select and load those relevant to the current task. Users do not interact directly, and no coordination among agents is required. Collective improvement arises entirely from shared skill evolution.

Within this loop, each interaction session contains more than plain dialogue. SkillClaw records the full causal chain: the user prompt, the agent’s actions (including tool calls), intermediate feedback (tool results, errors, and explicit user responses), and the final agent response. We record all of this because most skill-level failures are procedural. An incorrect argument format, a missing validation step, or a misordered tool call can cause a task to fail, yet none of these problems appears in the final response. They can only be diagnosed from the intermediate action-feedback trace. Each raw session is converted into a structured representation that preserves this chain:

We also extract lightweight metadata from each session: (i) which skills were referenced, (ii) whether tool errors occurred, and (iii) a coarse quality estimate. These signals help organize sessions but do not impose rigid labels.

Once sessions are structured, they are grouped by the skills they reference to enable cross-user reasoning. For each skill $s$, we collect all sessions that invoked $s$:

and place sessions that did not use any skill into a separate group $\mathcal{G}(\varnothing)$. This grouping does more than organize the data. When multiple sessions invoke the same skill but produce different outcomes across different users, tasks, or environments, the comparison directly reveals where the skill works and where it fails, with the skill itself as the controlled factor. This amounts to a natural ablation and enables two operations that would be unreliable from single-user data alone: (1) evaluating how an existing skill actually performs under diverse real-world usage, and (2) identifying recurring procedures that no existing skill covers, surfaced by patterns in $\mathcal{G}(\varnothing)$.

The core of SkillClaw is an agentic evolver that updates the shared skill repository with open-ended reasoning. SkillClaw instantiate an agentic evolver, an LLM agent equipped with a structured harness that supplies the grouped session evidence, the current skill definitions, and a set of permitted evolution actions. The harness provides structured inputs but does not constrain the evolver’s reasoning. The evolver diagnoses root causes from sessions of varying context lengths and skills of different formats, and decides how to act. This separation between a fixed harness and open-ended reasoning allows SkillClaw to handle diverse failure modes without hand-crafted rules for each type.

Concretely, given a skill $s$ and its associated session group $\mathcal{G}(s)$, the evolver examines both successful and failed executions and selects one of three actions:

For sessions in $\mathcal{G}(\varnothing)$, i.e., those that did not invoke any skill, the evolver focuses on discovering missing but reusable procedures. New skills are created only when the observed patterns are specific enough to be teachable and likely to recur.

Regardless of which action is chosen, the evolver always reasons over successful and failed sessions jointly. Successful sessions define the invariants of a skill, the parts that work and must not be altered. Failed sessions define the targets, the specific behaviors that need correction. This joint view is what prevents a naive failure: fixing one problem while inadvertently breaking a previously effective procedure. Each update corrects identified deficiencies while preserving what successful sessions have validated, making evolution cumulative. The complete procedure is given in Algorithm 1.

After evolution, candidate skill updates are validated before being written back to the shared repository. Validation is performed during the nighttime and executed in available idle user environments, ensuring that evaluation reflects real deployment conditions. For a skill $s$ and its candidate update $s^{\prime}$, the system selects relevant tasks from the interaction data collected during the day. Both versions are executed under the same environment using the full toolchain, including multi-step interactions and intermediate feedback. After execution, the system uses the model to compare the outcomes produced by $s$ and $s^{\prime}$. The decision is based on overall task success and execution stability. If the updated skill demonstrates better performance, it is marked as Accept; otherwise, it is marked as Reject. Accepted updates are merged into the shared repository and synchronized to all agents for the next day. Rejected updates are retained only as candidates and are not deployed. As a result, users always interact with the best validated skill pool from the previous night, rather than unverified updates. This validation step induces a monotonic deployment behavior. Since only improvements are accepted, the deployed skill pool does not degrade over time. Combined with the evolution process, the system forms a closed loop:

where updated skills shape future interactions and generate new evidence for the next round of evolution.

Three properties follow from this design. First, collective evolution. Sessions are aggregated across users, and knowledge discovered in one interaction is propagated to a shared skill ecosystem that benefits all users. Second, full automation. The entire pipeline, from session recording to skill synchronization, runs without manual curation or explicit user intervention. The only human input is normal agent usage. Third, agentic adaptability. Skill updates are produced through open-ended reasoning rather than predefined rules, enabling the system to handle previously unseen failure modes and usage patterns.

From the user’s perspective, none of this is visible. Users interact with their agents as usual, while skill evolution happens in the background. Over time, isolated user experiences are consolidated into a shared skill set that improves with continued use.

We evaluate SkillClaw on WildClawBench (Ding et al. (2026)), a real-world agent benchmark consisting of 60 complex tasks across six capability domains. As summarized in Table 1, the benchmark covers diverse scenarios including productivity workflows, code execution, social interaction, retrieval, creative generation, and safety alignment. Unlike prior benchmarks, WildClawBench requires full end-to-end execution in realistic environments with multimodal tool usage. Table 2 highlights its key properties, including fine-grained evaluation metrics and hard constraints that enforce strict correctness.

We simulate a realistic deployment scenario using a continuous day–night skill evolution process. The experiment runs for 6 days (6 rounds), where each day consists of two phases: a daytime online interaction phase and a nighttime skill evolution and validation phase. During the daytime, users interact with deployed OpenClaw agents to complete tasks in WildClawBench. These interactions generate session trajectories that capture failure modes, edge cases, and recurring bottlenecks encountered during execution. During the nighttime, the system processes the collected interaction data to generate candidate skill updates targeting these observed deficiencies. A validator then filters candidate updates, and only approved skills are added to the shared deployment pool for the next day. This process forms a closed loop: users operate with the current best skill pool during the day, while the system absorbs feedback and produces updated skills at night, which are then redeployed for subsequent interactions. Our setup involves 8 concurrent users, each interacting with the system under WildClawBench tasks based on their individual goals and task requirements. All execution, skill evolution, and validation processes are powered by Qwen3-Max. At the system level, we maintain a shared current best skill pool. Day 1 starts with an initial skill set corresponding to the baseline. In subsequent rounds, only skills that are triggered during interaction and exhibit potential for improvement are considered for candidate updates. Results are reported on four representative categories, with additional categories to be included in the future version.

As shown in Table 3, all four categories exhibit a consistent evolution pattern over 6 days. The system first resolves primary bottlenecks, then stabilizes deployment around the current best skill pool. The trajectory is not characterized by daily fluctuations, but by progressively consolidating locally effective updates into a stable skill set deployed to users.

Social Interaction improves earliest and most sharply. Performance increases from 54.01% to 60.34% on Day 2 and remains stable thereafter. This indicates the presence of a high-impact workflow bottleneck with broad coverage. Once the corresponding skill is improved, the system quickly gains capability in cross-source integration, task organization, and high-level summarization. Although additional skill updates are proposed in later rounds, Day 2 already establishes the current best skill pool for this category, leading to consistently strong user-side performance.

Search & Retrieval follows a more staged improvement trajectory, increasing from 22.73% to 30.00%, and then further to 34.55%. Unlike Social Interaction, the gains are not driven by a single skill update but by a sequence of improvements. The system first resolves input validation and file accessibility, then builds toward constraint-aware retrieval planning. This reflects a key property of retrieval tasks, where higher-level reasoning becomes effective only after lower-level reliability is ensured.

Creative Synthesis shows a large early jump from 11.57% to 21.80% on Day 2 and then plateaus. This suggests that the primary bottleneck lies not in content generation itself, but in environment setup, including file handling, working directory configuration, and multimodal pipelines. Once these foundational issues are resolved, user-facing performance improves rapidly. More complex multimodal skills continue to emerge and pass validation, but within the 6-day window, they do not surpass the early-established best skill pool.

Safety & Alignment improves later, from 24.00% to 32.00%. Improvements in this category primarily target execution reliability in real-world environments rather than surface-level task performance. Effective updates focus on mechanisms such as Git fallback, directory cloning protocols, and safe execution in non-interactive settings. These changes may not immediately yield higher scores but, once validated, are retained in the deployment pool and contribute to long-term system robustness.

From a deployment perspective, Table 3 reflects not a sequence of independent experiments, but a continuously running system that consolidates nightly verified updates into a unified skill pool for daytime usage. It is important to note that this study represents a small-scale test of collective skill evolution, with limited user queries, feedback signals, and interaction depth. Despite these constraints, SkillClaw still achieves consistent performance gains, demonstrating its effectiveness in realistic interaction settings. Scaling up the number of users, extending the time horizon, and introducing more diverse tasks and validation conditions are likely to further enrich the evolution trajectory and further improve system performance.

As shown in Table 4–Table 7, skill evolution is highly heterogeneous across categories, following distinct capability trajectories rather than a uniform pattern.

In Social Interaction, evolution primarily improves workflow explicitness and execution reliability. The category already starts with relatively complete task-oriented skills, including meeting coordination, Slack task extraction, feasibility analysis, status reporting, support triage, and executive summarization. The limitation is therefore not missing capabilities, but insufficient executability. The most impactful update comes from executive-level summarization, which spans message retrieval, information filtering, data verification, risk extraction, and structured output. Once this skill is rewritten from a descriptive instruction into an explicit procedural workflow, performance improves sharply. Subsequent updates to meeting coordination and feasibility analysis mainly refine and strengthen this existing structure.

Search & Retrieval exhibits a staged evolution pattern. Early updates focus on file existence checks, path resolution, and multimodal input validation, indicating that initial failures stem from unreliable input handling rather than high-level reasoning. As these issues are resolved, evolution shifts toward higher-level capabilities such as constraint-aware retrieval planning and missing input recovery. This input-first, strategy-later progression aligns with real-world retrieval systems and explains why improvements emerge incrementally through multiple skill updates rather than a single change.

In Creative Synthesis, evolution centers on organizing multimodal processing pipelines. Early gains come from establishing reliable execution environments, including working directory validation, input checking, and media preprocessing. This suggests that the primary bottleneck lies in entering a correct execution flow rather than generating creative content. Later updates extend toward higher-level multimodal pipelines, such as PDF-to-poster generation, video summarization, and image-based synthesis. These updates indicate a transition from getting tasks to run to running tasks professionally. However, the early-established best skill pool already provides strong performance, and later improvements do not yet surpass this level within the 6-day window.

Safety & Alignment follows a reliability-driven evolution path. Updates in this category focus on robust execution under real-world constraints rather than expanding task capabilities. Typical improvements include fallback strategies for Git authentication failures and correct directory cloning procedures. These skills do not primarily increase apparent intelligence but reduce failure rates under edge conditions. Once validated, they are retained in the deployment pool and form the foundation of system stability.

Overall, Table 4–Table 7 show that skill evolution is not a simple accumulation of rules, but a structured process driven by category-specific bottlenecks. Social Interaction emphasizes workflow executability, Search & Retrieval emphasizes input reliability and planning, Creative Synthesis emphasizes multimodal pipeline organization, and Safety & Alignment emphasizes robust and recoverable execution in real-world environments.

Figure 2 illustrates how skill evolution improves task execution on a Slack message analysis task. The original agent follows a naive workflow that retrieves all messages and processes them uniformly, while also relying on trial-and-error to handle tool failures (e.g., incorrect API port configuration). As a result, execution is both inefficient and error-prone. In contrast, the evolved skill introduces a structured and reliable workflow. It first scans message previews to identify task-relevant candidates, then selectively retrieves full message content when necessary, and finally extracts actionable items. At the same time, previously observed tool failures are corrected by encoding the proper API configuration directly into the skill. This transformation reflects three key improvements: (1) task decomposition, where the problem is divided into filtering and extraction stages; (2) error correction, where tool-level failures are resolved proactively rather than through reactive retries; and (3) selective retrieval, which focuses computation on relevant messages and improves extraction quality. Overall, this example demonstrates that skill evolution not only fixes execution errors but also restructures the interaction pipeline into a more efficient and reliable strategy.

Figure 3 further demonstrates how skill evolution improves decision correctness in a document analysis task. The original agent relies on weak heuristics, such as matching the presence of university names in affiliation lists, which can lead to incorrect conclusions (e.g., counting non-first affiliations as valid matches). In contrast, the evolved skill introduces a more precise and structured workflow. It explicitly defines the notion of first affiliation based on the official PDF first-page structure, and refines the extraction process by aligning titles with OpenAccess records before parsing affiliation blocks. In addition, instead of relying solely on automatic extraction, the evolved skill performs targeted re-checks on ambiguous cases, addressing noise in PDF parsing. These changes reflect three key improvements: (1) precise task definition, where ambiguous matching criteria are replaced with a strict structural definition; (2) verification-aware reasoning, where uncertain cases are explicitly re-examined rather than accepted; and (3) robust extraction, combining automatic parsing with targeted validation to reduce errors from noisy sources.

Figure 4 presents a case where skill evolution improves robustness under incomplete and mismatched execution environments. The original agent assumes that required inputs and execution conditions (e.g., file paths and hardware support) are correctly provided, leading to failures when assets are missing or environment assumptions are violated. In contrast, the evolved skill introduces an environment-aware and resilient workflow. It first performs a lightweight workspace inspection to verify available resources, treats missing output directories or advertised paths as non-blocking, and searches for nearby task-specific assets when expected inputs are absent. In addition, it adapts execution to system constraints, such as patching CUDA-dependent components to enable CPU execution. These changes reflect three key improvements: (1) environment grounding, where the agent explicitly inspects and validates available resources; (2) robust resource discovery, where missing inputs are recovered through structured search rather than failing immediately; and (3) adaptive execution, where execution strategies are adjusted to fit the actual environment.

Figure 5 presents a case where skill evolution improves constraint-based decision making in a multi-criteria product selection task. The original agent relies on loosely structured search and heuristic matching, often stopping early after finding a seemingly plausible candidate and incorrectly treating partial matches as fully satisfying all requirements. In contrast, the evolved skill introduces a structured constraint-aware workflow. It systematically verifies each requirement (e.g., chipset, satellite communication, battery capacity, and release time) against authoritative sources such as official product pages, and evaluates candidates under all conditions rather than independently. Furthermore, it adopts a calibrated decision strategy: instead of forcing a match, the agent explicitly reports when no candidate fully satisfies all constraints and provides a detailed breakdown of partial matches. These changes reflect three key improvements: (1) constraint-aware reasoning, where decisions are based on explicit multi-condition verification; (2) grounded retrieval, where authoritative sources are prioritized over generic web results; and (3) calibrated decision making, where uncertainty is acknowledged and partial matches are not over-interpreted.

Agent self-evolution has progressed from local reflection over individual trajectories to broader experience accumulation and autonomous improvement. Shinn et al. (2024) studies verbal self-correction after interaction, Zhao et al. (2024) turns experience into reusable lessons, and Liu et al. (2025b) further improves reuse through contextual replay. Beyond reflection, planning-oriented work such as Zhou et al. (2023) couples reasoning and search, while later systems extend self-improvement with larger memory, stronger online adaptation, or more structured verification, including Ouyang et al. (2025b), Zhai et al. (2025), Liu et al. (2025a), Fang et al. (2025b), Wang et al. (2026b), Zhang et al. (2026c), Xia et al. (2026b), and Huang and Huang (2025). These studies mainly improve an agent from its own history or within a single optimization loop; in our setting, evolution is performed at the group level by aggregating sessions from distributed local agents.

Another line of work treats skills as explicit units that encode standardized procedures or SOP-like guidance for agent behavior (Anthropic, 2026b; Anthropic, 2026a). Wang et al. (2023) demonstrates the value of an accumulating skill library for lifelong learning, and later work studies skill optimization, discovery, refinement, and transfer through transferable skills (Nottingham et al., 2024; Xia et al., 2026b; Wang et al., 2026b), web skill induction (Zheng et al., 2025), automated multi-agent skill discovery (Alzubi et al., 2026), recursive skill-augmented learning (Xia et al., 2026a), evolving memory skills (Zhang et al., 2026a), lifelong skill self-evolution (Yang et al., 2026), and routing through skill transfer (Wang et al., 2026a). At a broader ecosystem level, Tang et al. (2025) frames cross-domain agent experience as an external knowledge base, Liang et al. (2026) studies how skills can be created and connected, Li et al. (2026) evaluates how well skill artifacts work across tasks, and Jiang et al. (2026) summarizes the notion of agentic skills beyond simple tool use. Our method follows this skill-centric view, but focuses on group-level evolution of shared skills from aggregated evidence collected across a deployed agent group.