GRASP: Gated Regression-Aware Skill Proposer for Self-Improving LLM Agents
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
LLM agents acting in structured environments fail in operational rather than conversational ways, and reliability depends on procedural knowledge of the environment. Prior self-improvement methods accumulate natural-language guidance without checking that each new item preserves previously correct behavior, so a note that fixes one trajectory can silently regress another. We introduce GRASP (Gated Regression-Aware Skill Proposer), which treats agent improvement as a sequence of edits to a bounded skill library, admitting each candidate only if it produces a net improvement on a balanced held-out probe under a hard regression budget. We evaluate GRASP across five base models on two FHIR-based clinical benchmarks, which score procedural reliability against FHIR state rather than clinical correctness or patient outcomes. On MedAgentBench, GRASP lifts gpt-oss-120b from 40.6% to 88.8%, exceeds the strongest of five self-improvement baselines by 21.0 points, and improves every other base model by 17.2 to 40.3 points. Ablations attribute the gain to comparative proposal generation, the acceptance gate, and the hard regression budget rather than to skill writing itself, which without validation is no better than using no skills. Granting the same acceptance gate to all five baselines lifts each of them in-domain and none of them out of distribution, isolating the gain to the gate applied to a bounded, editable library rather than to held-out validation itself. The mechanism helps in non-clinical environments where tasks recur with verifiable structure and is flat where the action space is open-ended. Frozen libraries transfer across models and across benchmarks that share a tool-calling convention and degrade under interface mismatch.
Results and benchmarks
LLM agents acting in structured environments fail in operational rather than conversational ways, and reliability depends on procedural knowledge of the environment.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Compare implementation paths
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
- Maintenance
- Recently updated
- Confidence
- Low
- Reproducibility
- Moderate
- Stars
- 13
- Last push
- Aug 21, 2026 (70d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
- Maintenance
- Recently updated
- Confidence
- Low
- Reproducibility
- Moderate
- Stars
- 0
- Last push
- Aug 22, 2026 (69d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
- No CI pipeline detected
- No Docker setup
- Low confidence match
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Repositories and ecosystem
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
- jomoll/GRASP
Confidence: Low · 13 stars
- lgn-spears/harness-cl
Confidence: Low · 0 stars
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Large Language Models, AI Agents
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.