Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2609.09233

Subagents vs Agent Skills: Executing Reusable Knowledge for Long-Horizon Agentic Tasks

Abstract

How can language model agents effectively leverage libraries of reusable knowledge to solve long-horizon tasks? Recent work has increasingly focused on agent skills: reusable capabilities represented as skill packages, i.e., multi-file bundles containing instructions, scripts, and other resources that help agents perform specific tasks. Agent skills are typically executed by loading their skill instructions into an agent's context and relying on the agent to follow them. As task horizons grow, however, this approach becomes increasingly brittle, because reasoning quality degrades as more information accumulates in the context window. We investigate an alternative approach in which skill packages are instead invoked as subagents. Rather than loading skill instructions into the main context, subagent execution spawns fresh context windows dedicated to solving individual subtasks. We show that subagent execution outperforms agent-skill execution when skill packages expose clear input-output contracts and their instructions encode the procedural knowledge needed to fulfill those contracts. The tradeoff is additional communication overhead, as extra tokens are required to coordinate between the main agent and its subagents. Our results show that the benefit of reusable knowledge depends not only on its content, but also on how it is organized and invoked.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Wasu Top Piriyakulkij, Rachel Lawrence, Alicia Curth, Sushrut Karmalkar, Niranjani Prasad. 2026-09-07. Subagents vs Agent Skills: Executing Reusable Knowledge for Long-Horizon Agentic Tasks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09233

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CyrillicQA: The Influence of Phonetically Encoded Secret Language on LLM Performance

Due to the selection of their training data, large language models (LLMs) perform best on standard-language inputs from languages using the Latin alphabet with large speaker populations, while disadvantaging other language varieties. Nevertheless, they can also be a versatile tool for preserving precisely such endangered languages. But do they also possess the necessary creativity and capacity for abstraction to decode phonetically encoded language the same way humans do?

cs.CL

KARMA: Knowledge graph-based Automated Reasoning Materialization and Alignment

Template-based contrastive synthesis is scalable, but its candidates often differ only in a few entity-slots while sequence-level optimization spreads supervision over mostly shared templates. We formalize this as the Resolution Mismatch Problem and propose KARMA, which enumerates schema-constrained paths over domain knowledge graphs and verbalizes them into slot-aligned contrastive candidates. Slot-Parallel Alignment (SPA) then applies a decoupled slot-level objective to route preference supervision to discriminative entity-slots, with slot-aware masked attention serving as an optional packed-evaluation implementation. Across biomedical, computer-science, and chemistry benchmarks, KARMA outperforms base LLM and same-data SFT baselines, and compares favorably with sequence- and token-level preference methods.

cs.CL

MOLE: Detecting Insider Threats in AI Agents

Model misalignment, prompt injection, or operator misuse could lead AI agents operating frontier-lab accounts to exfiltrate model weights, poison training data, or weaken release gates. Existing benchmarks do not test whether defenders can detect this activity among routine work under a limited review budget. We introduce MOLE, an open benchmark of 150 AI-operated accounts sharing 9 stateful services over 30 workdays, with 12 threats and 8 corpora from four models totaling roughly 20 billion tokens. Of 39 agent models, 72% complete most assigned harmful objectives and agent refusal does not predict completion. MOLE enables comparison of 40 monitors across corpus generators, observability levels, and threats; even the best evaluated monitor in our single-day audit-event comparison misses nearly half of completed harm. MOLE also enables monitor development: benchmark-guided search improves a mid-tier monitor by 49-64%, while selective use of a stronger monitor improves budget-AUC by 10% over applying it to every account-day at comparable modeled cost.

cs.LG