Evolve SKILL.md files from agent execution traces using a three-stage pipeline: trajectory collection from observed runs, parallel multi-agent patch proposal for error and success analysis, and conflict-free consolidation of overlapping edits via prevalence-weighting. Based on the Trace2Skill methodology.
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add pjt222/agent-almanac --skill evolve-skill-from-traces --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Evolve Skill From Traces?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/pjt222-evolve-skill-from-traces-89ff2417)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: evolve-skill-from-traces
locale: caveman-ultra
source_locale: en
source_commit: 82c77053
fence_basis_commit: 82c77053
translator: "Julius Brussee homage — caveman"
translation_date: "2026-04-24"
description: >
Evolve SKILL.md files from agent execution traces using a three-stage pipeline:
trajectory collection from observed runs, parallel multi-agent patch proposal
for error and success analysis, and conflict-free consolidation of overlapping
edits via prevalence-weighting. Based on the Trace2Skill methodology.
license: MIT
allowed-tools: Read Write Edit Bash Grep Glob Agent
metadata:
author: Philipp Thoss
version: "1.0"
domain: general
complexity: advanced
language: multi
tags: meta, skill-evolution, traces, multi-agent, consolidation, trace2skill
---
# Evolve a Skill from Execution Traces
Raw traces → validated SKILL.md via 3-stage pipeline: trajectory collect, parallel multi-agent patch proposal, conflict-free consolidation. Bridges observed behavior + documented procedures. Successful runs → reproducible skills.
## Use When
- Traces reveal recurring patterns not in skills
- Observed behavior outperforms documented
- Build skills from scratch via expert demos
- Multiple agents propose conflicting improvements
## In
- **Required**: `traces` — agent logs/transcripts (min 10 successful recommended)
- **Required**: `target_skill` — path to existing SKILL.md or `"new"` for from-scratch
- **Optional**: `analyst_count` — parallel analysts (default: 4)
- **Optional**: `held_out_ratio` — fraction reserved for validation (default: 0.2)
## Do
### Step 1: Collect Traces
Gather logs/tool-call sequences/transcripts. Filter successful. Normalize → (state, action, outcome) triples w/ timestamps.
1. Identify source: session logs, tool-call history, conversation exports
2. Filter by success (exit 0, completion flag, user confirm)
3. Normalize each → structured triples:
```text
trace_entry:
state: <context before the action>
action: <tool call, command, or decision made>
outcome: <result, output, or state change>
timestamp: <ISO 8601>
```
4. Partition: reserve `held_out_ratio` (default 20%) for Step 7 validation, rest for Steps 2-6
```bash
# Example: count available traces and compute partition
total_traces=$(ls traces/*.json | wc -l)
held_out=$(echo "$total_traces * 0.2 / 1" | bc)
drafting=$((total_traces - held_out))
echo "Drafting: $drafting traces, Held-out: $held_out traces"
```
→ Normalized traces partitioned drafting (80%) + held-out (20%). Each entry has state, action, outcome, timestamp.
If err: <10 successful → collect more. Small sets → overfit → fail on novel. No timestamps → ordinal sequence.
### Step 2: Cluster
Group by outcome pattern. Identify invariant core (all successful) vs variant branches (diff across runs). Invariant core = skeleton.
1. Align by action type → sequence labels
2. Longest common subsequence → invariant core
3. Classify rest → variants, note which traces + conditions
4. Branch frequency: % of successful including each variant
```text
invariant_core:
- action: "read_input_file"
frequency: 100%
- action: "validate_schema"
frequency: 100%
- action: "transform_data"
frequency: 100%
variant_branches:
- action: "retry_on_timeout"
frequency: 35%
condition: "network latency > 2s"
- action: "fallback_to_cache"
frequency: 15%
condition: "API returns 503"
```
→ Clear separation invariant (all) vs variant (subset). Each variant has frequency + condition.
If err: no invariant emerges (heterogeneous) → target may be multiple distinct skills. Split by outcome type, process each.
### Step 3: Draft Skeleton
Invariant core → initial SKILL.md w/ frontmatter, When to Use (entry conditions), Inputs (varied params), Procedure (1 step per invariant action).
1. Extract entry conditions from first state → When to Use
2. Params varied (paths, thresholds, options) → Inputs
3. 1 procedure step per invariant action, most common phrasing
4. Placeholder Expected/On failure based on observed outcomes
```bash
# Scaffold the skeleton if creating a new skill
mkdir -p skills/<skill-name>/
```
```markdown
# Skeleton structure
## When to Use
- <derived from common entry conditions>
## Inputs
- **Required**: <parameters present in all traces>
- **Optional**: <parameters present in some traces>
## Procedure
### Step N: <invariant action label>
<most common implementation from traces>
**Expected:** <most common success outcome>
**On failure:** <placeholder -- refined in Steps 4-6>
```
→ Valid SKILL.md skeleton w/ frontmatter, When to Use, Inputs, Procedure (1 step per invariant). Expected = observed, On failure = placeholder.
If err: skeleton >500 lines pre-variants → invariant too granular. Merge adjacent actions always together. Target 5-10 steps.
### Step 4: Parallel Multi-Agent Patches
Spawn N analysts (4-6), each reviews traces vs skeleton from diff lens. Each → structured patch: section, old, new, rationale.
Lens per analyst:
| Analyst | Lens | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Correctness | All success paths captured? Any invariant missing? |
| 2 | Efficiency | Redundant steps? Merge/parallelize? |
| 3 | Robustness | Failure modes unhandled? On failure content? |
| 4 | Edge Cases | Variants become conditional steps or pitfalls? |
| 5 (optional) | Clarity | Each step unambiguous? Mechanically followable? |
| 6 (optional) | Generalizability | Trace-specific artifacts should abstract? |
Each analyst gets:
- Skeleton from Step 3
- Full drafting set (not held-out)
- Assigned lens + focus questions
Each → structured patches:
```text
patch:
analyst: "robustness"
section: "Procedure > Step 3"
old_text: "**On failure:** <placeholder>"
new_text: "**On failure:** If the API returns 503, wait 5 seconds and retry up to 3 times. If retries are exhausted, fall back to the cached response from the previous successful run."
rationale: "Traces #4, #7, #12 show 503 errors resolved by retry. Trace #15 shows cache fallback when retries fail."
supporting_traces: [4, 7, 12, 15]
```
→ Each analyst returns 3-10 patches w/ section, old/new, rationale, trace IDs. All collected into single set.
If err: analyst returns no patches → lens may not apply. OK — not every lens surfaces issues. Vague patches no trace refs → reject + re-prompt w/ supporting_traces req.
### Step 5: Detect + Classify Conflicts
Compare all patches for overlapping edits. Classify each pair.
1. Index by target section
2. Same section → compare old_text + new_text
3. Classify:
| Conflict | Def | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| Compatible | Diff sections, no overlap | Merge directly |
| Complementary | Same section, additive (both add, no contradiction) | Combine text |
| Contradictory | Same section, mutually exclusive (add X, remove X or add Y instead) | Step 6 resolution |
```text
conflict_report:
total_patches: 24
compatible: 18
complementary: 4
contradictory: 2
contradictions:
- section: "Procedure > Step 5"
patch_a: {analyst: "efficiency", action: "remove step"}
patch_b: {analyst: "robustness", action: "add retry logic"}
supporting_traces_a: [2, 8, 11]
supporting_traces_b: [4, 7, 12, 15]
```
→ Conflict report: all pairs classified, contradictions have supporting trace counts.
If err: ambiguous (patch adds + modifies same section) → split into 2 (additive + modifying). Re-classify.
### Step 6: Consolidate
Merge all → single SKILL.md via 3-tier resolution.
1. **Compatible**: Apply directly — diff sections no conflict
2. **Complementary**: Combine new_text from both → coherent block, both contributions preserved
3. **Contradictory**: Prevalence-weighting:
- Count traces supporting each
- Prefer more traces
- Tied (or within 10%) → `argumentation` skill to eval which better serves purpose
- Document rejected as Pitfall or On failure note
```text
consolidation_log:
applied_directly: 18
combined: 4
resolved_by_prevalence: 1
resolved_by_argumentation: 1
rejected_alternatives_documented: 2
```
Post-consolidation verify:
- All sections present (When to Use, Inputs, Procedure, Validation, Common Pitfalls, Related Skills)
- Every step has Expected + On failure
- No duplicate/contradictory instructions
- Line count ≤ 500
→ Single consolidated SKILL.md incorporating all analysts. Contradictions resolved w/ rationale. Rejected alts → pitfall/note.
If err: internally inconsistent (Step 3 assumes file exists but Step 2 removed by efficiency) → revert conflicting edit, keep original skeleton for section. Flag for manual review.
### Step 7: Validate + Register
Run consolidated against held-out (20% Step 1). Verify Expected/On failure match observed in unseen traces.
1. Each held-out → walk through procedure step-by-step
2. Each step → compare Expected vs actual
3. Record matches/mismatches:
```text
validation_results:
held_out_traces: 5
full_match: 4
partial_match: 1
no_match: 0
mismatches:
- trace_id: 23
step: 4
expected: "API returns 200"
actual: "API returns 429 (rate limited)"
action: "Add rate-limit handling to On failure block"
```
4. Mismatch >20% → return Step 4 w/ mismatched added to drafting
5. New skill → `create-skill` for dir, registry, symlinks
6. Evolving existing → `evolve-skill` for version + translation sync
```bash
# Final validation: line count
lines=$(wc -l < skills/<skill-name>/SKILL.md)
[ "$lines" -le 500 ] && echo "OK ($lines lines)" || echo "FAIL: $lines lines > 500"
```
→ ≥80% held-out match end-to-end. Registered in `skills/_registry.yml` w/ correct metadata.
If err: >20% mismatch → overfit to drafting. Add mismatched to drafting, re-run Step 2. Still fail after 2 iterations → too variable for single skill → split by outcome type.
## Check
- [ ] ≥10 successful traces before drafting
- [ ] Partitioned drafting (80%) + held-out (20%)
- [ ] Invariant + variants documented
- [ ] ≥4 analysts distinct lenses
- [ ] All conflicts classified (compatible, complementary, contradictory)
- [ ] Contradictions resolved w/ rationale
- [ ] SKILL.md all sections w/ Expected/On failure
- [ ] Held-out ≥80% match
- [ ] Line ≤500
- [ ] Registered (new) or version-bumped (existing)
## Traps
- **Too few traces**: <10 → unreliable. Invariant may include accidental, variants lack frequency data. Collect more.
- **Overfit to artifacts**: Tool-specific (particular API client retry) may not generalize. Step 3 abstract → tool-agnostic. Describe *what*, not *which tool*.
- **Ignore failure traces**: Failures reveal On failure content. Step 1 collect failed + tag. Step 4 robustness analyst evaluates unhandled.
- **Single-lens**: 1-2 analysts miss perspectives. Efficiency alone strips safety checks robustness would preserve. ≥4 distinct lenses.
- **Merge contradictions w/o resolution**: Both sides → inconsistent skill ("do X" + "skip X"). Always classify + resolve Step 6.
- **No held-out validation**: Consolidated may fit drafting perfect, fail novel runs. Reserve 20% + test.
## →
- `evolve-skill` — simpler human-directed (complementary: no traces)
- `create-skill` — newly extracted from scratch; Step 7 registration
- `review-skill-format` — validation post-consolidation → agentskills.io
- `argumentation` — Step 6 resolve contradictions when prevalence tied
- `verify-agent-output` — evidence trails for patches; validates analyst outputs Step 4
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!