Skill-as-Pseudocode: Refactoring Skill Libraries to Pseudocode for LLM Agents
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Markdown skill libraries for LLM agents ship as free-form prose, forcing the agent to re-derive both the input schema and the concrete invocation syntax on every retrieval. This produces a "confused $\to$ re-retrieve $\to$ still confused" loop: the agent issues a partially-correct action, receives uninformative feedback, and re-retrieves the same prose. We propose Skill-as-Pseudocode (SaP), an automatic conversion of markdown skill libraries into typed pseudocode with deterministic quality control. From each cluster of similar procedural passages, SaP extracts a typed contract and filters it through a four-check deterministic verifier (coverage, binding, replacement, risk). Promoted contracts are inlined into a rewritten skill skeleton alongside restored action templates, giving the agent two complementary signals: a typed signature for what a skill does and a concrete template for how to invoke it. On the ALFWorld unseen split (134 games, gpt-4o-mini, three seeds), SaP wins 82/402 paired games versus 47/402 for the Graph-of-Skills (GoS) baseline (pooled McNemar $p = 8.2 \times 10^{-5}$), at $-22.8 \pm 6.4$% input tokens and $-14.5 \pm 4.1$% LLM calls per game. A bundle-component ablation attributes the gain to the pairing of typed contracts with concrete action templates: the contract alone falls below the prose baseline.
Results and benchmarks
Markdown skill libraries for LLM agents ship as free-form prose, forcing the agent to re-derive both the input schema and the concrete invocation syntax on every retrieval.
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
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.
- InternLM/Skill-as-Pseudocode
Confidence: Medium · 4 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.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Agentic tool use, Retrieval / indexing
Methods
Transformer, Retrieval-augmented generation
Domains
Large Language Models, AI Agents, Information Retrieval
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.