skillopt
Skill69 starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Runs the SkillOpt single-lineage optimization loop, which organizes a hill-climb into epochs over mini-batches of train tasks under a textual learning rate — an integer edit budget that decays on a constant|linear|cosine schedule — and ends each epoch with one extra gated consolidation step. Parent is always the current best; acceptance is the val significance gate. Use when a run should anneal from broad early edits to small late ones and consolidate once per epoch, rather than hill-climb's one-shot whole-trainset proposals or gepa's Pareto frontier.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- GstMirabal/Token-Optimized-Agent-Pipelinetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mannyandrs45/agentic-skill-librarytheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- iliaal/whetstonetheir own version, first seen Jul 12, 2026
- TheophilusChinomona/idevtheir own version, first seen Jun 12, 2026
- harrylabsj/skillopttheir own version, first seen Jun 7, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- iliaal/whetstone★ 36same name
- harrylabsj/skillopt★ 2same name
- GstMirabal/Token-Optimized-Agent-Pipeline★ 1same name
- mannyandrs45/agentic-skill-library★ 0same name
- TheophilusChinomona/idev★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository22 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- agent-optimizeSkill
- evographSkill
- gepaSkill
- hill-climbSkill
- mcp-toolSkill
- skill-packageSkill
- system-promptSkill
- toolsSkill
- wikiSkill
- run-optimizerSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- using-cap-evolveSkill
- baselineSkill
- diagnoseSkill
- evaluateSkill
- finalizeSkill
- gateSkill
- implement-and-checkSkill
- intakeSkill
- reportSkill
The file
Files
skillopt — annealed single-lineage climb (epochs × mini-batches)
SkillOpt (arXiv:2605.23904, Executive Strategy for Self-Evolving Agent Skills) organizes a hill-climb into epochs × mini-batches under a decaying integer edit budget. The name is the paper's; the algorithm edits whatever the selected capability owns — a prompt, a tool surface, a skill package — and never assumes which.
Read the shared step first, then this file. Parent materialization, the
optimizer call, the val evaluation, the significance gate, accept/reject,
snapshot/best, the memory and handover files: all of that is
harness.run_step, documented once in algorithms/hill-climb/SKILL.md
§ "One iteration, end to end" and algorithms/hill-climb/references/run-step.md.
This file states only what SkillOpt does differently.
Know the bound before reaching for this algorithm: run_step lets a caller
vary exactly two things — parent_dir and instructions. SkillOpt pins
parent_dir to the current best, identical to hill-climb, so everything novel
lives in the instructions string plus the choice to run one extra step per
epoch. It is prompt shaping and step scheduling, not a different search.
What SkillOpt does differently
- A decaying integer edit budget
L.lr_schedule.build_scheduleemits one integer per step overconstant | linear | cosine, clamped to[--min-edit-budget, --edit-budget](core/cap_evolve/lr_schedule.py:42-55).Lis stated to the optimizer in prose — "at most L bounded edits" — and is never mechanically enforced. See the next section before you tune it. - A per-epoch rejected-edit list. Each reject appends its candidate id and
val Δ, and the next step's prompt asks the optimizer to avoid them
(
skillopt.py:120-125,:330-335). It carries no description of what the rejected edit changed, so treat it as a weak signal — the run-globalLEDGER.mdthatrun_stepalready injects names the tasks each prior edit broke and fixed, which is strictly more useful. - One extra gated step per epoch boundary (from epoch 2). It compares the
epoch-start candidate against the current best, buckets tasks as
regressed / persistent-failure / stable-success, and asks for a consolidating
edit that fixes regressions without breaking the stable passes. It goes
through the same
run_stepand the same val gate — it is never force-accepted (skillopt.py:493-499). Disable with--no-slow-update. A fourth bucket,improved, is computed and logged but is not exclusive with the others and never reaches the prompt (skillopt.py:184-191,:139-166).
Epochs shuffle the train ids seeded by epoch number, so a rerun is reproducible.
steps_per_epoch = ceil(len(train) / (batch_size × accumulation)).
The textual learning rate, stated without the analogy
The knob is real: L decays, it is an integer, and the schedules are correct.
The justification is weaker than the ML vocabulary implies, and pretending
otherwise would mislead anyone tuning it.
What plausibly holds: the gate accepts or rejects a whole candidate. A candidate bundling six edits where five help and one hurts is rejected entirely, and you learn nothing about which edit was the problem. Fewer edits per candidate means an accepted candidate is more likely to contain only good edits and a rejected one is cheaper to attribute and revert. That argues for small edits — it does not by itself argue for decay.
What does not transfer: in SGD, LR decay exists because nothing stops a large step from overshooting near an optimum. Here the val significance gate already rejects an overshooting edit before it can become the parent. The overshoot protection is the gate, so the decay is not doing that job.
What is unmeasured: no ablation in this repo isolates the schedule's effect.
At realistic step counts the choice barely exists — over 12 steps from 4 down
to 2, linear and cosine differ at 2 of 12 positions. Prefer constant or
linear and spend your tuning budget on --n-trials and the gate instead. This
is a heuristic that has not been isolated; do not present it as a proven one.
Known gaps
These are shipped-behavior defects in core/cap_evolve/skillopt.py. The skill
describes what the code does today, not what it intends to do. Line numbers are
against current main — check them; if one no longer says what it is cited for,
the gap has moved and this section is what needs re-deriving.
- The mini-batch never reaches the optimizer (issue #371). Mini-batch ids come
from train (
skillopt.py:237, sliced at:291) but are handed toctx.instructions(:300) to filter the parent's val rows (harness.py:2270-2272; the same train-vs-val mismatch at:323,:327), and splits are disjoint slices (splits.py:117-119). So the focus summary always renders0 solid / 0 flaky / 0 failing of 0 focused task(s) of N on val, the failure index is empty, and## Failure patterns still unsolvednever appears — while the(mini-batch of N train tasks, L=…)label still prints, which is why it looked healthy. (The whole-val protect-these-ids block is populated, fromharness.py:2279— that is the only per-task content a step gets, and #391 added theof N on valscope precisely so those two numbers stop contradicting each other.) Until #371 lands the per-step signal is the label plus theLsentence, so the epoch/mini-batch structure is bookkeeping rather than focus. PR #370 fixed the same defect in hill-climb'scyclic/hardest-firstmodes. - The epoch-boundary re-evaluation scores the whole train split, not a sample.
skillopt.py:467-472callsevaluate_candidate(..., split="train")twice with noids=, then discards everything outside the ~20 sampled ids (:473-475). Budget it as2 × len(train) × n_trialsrollouts per boundary. - When an epoch accepted nothing, the comparison is vacuous. The re-eval is
guarded by
prev_epoch_best_id != run_dir.best_id(skillopt.py:464); if nothing moved, both sides staycurrent_val— the same list — so 0 regressed and 0 improved are reported over val tasks while the log line claims a train sample size (:478-482). The consolidation step still runs. requested_editsvsapplied_changessurfaces nothing, and the number is wrong._changed_components(skillopt.py:406-435) counts files whose bytes differ, not edits, andapplied_changesis written at:346/:353and read nowhere — no dashboard column, no check, no warning. It also over-counts, because its ignore list (:420) matches seven.mdbasenames whilerun_stepinjects a whole read-context —guidance/,trajectories/,prior_iterations/*/diff.patch— that_SNAPSHOT_IGNOREkeeps out of the parent snapshot, so every injected file reads as an applied edit. Measured zero-API onexamples/toy_calcatL=4: a step whose optimizer edited exactly one file loggedapplied_changes: 10(9 injected + 1 real), and the next step logged10again with the capability file byte-identical to its parent. The metric has no zero, so it cannot detect the one thing it exists to detect: an optimizer that made no edit at all.- "skill" leaks into the live prompt.
skillopt.py:147tells the optimizer to compare "the skill" regardless of which capability is under optimization. An algorithm must be capability-agnostic; this text is not.
Key flags
--epochs, --batch-size, --accumulation (mini-batches per step; multiplies
the effective batch), --edit-budget / --min-edit-budget / --lr-schedule,
--slow-update-sample, --no-slow-update. --resume, --no-regression,
--n-trials, --workers, --gate-mode, --k-se, --protected-paths,
--store behave as in hill-climb.
--max-iterations is accepted and ignored — the loop is epoch-driven, so
cap-evolve run's iteration cap has no effect here (scripts/run.py:42-43, whose
help text now says so). Control the step count with --epochs/--batch-size.
python scripts/run.py --run-dir .capevolve/run_X --project .capevolve/project \
--optimizer 'python .../run-optimizer/scripts/run.py --name mock --workdir {workdir} --prompt {prompt}' \
--epochs 4 --batch-size 8 --accumulation 1 \
--edit-budget 4 --lr-schedule linear --min-edit-budget 2 --n-trials 4Requires baseline.json first, like its sibling algorithms.
References
references/concepts.md— the loop step by step, the schedule shapes with worked values, and the buffer / consolidation mechanics. Load it when you need to change the loop or reason about its rollout cost, not to run it.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

