29 mined skills beat prompt-search code optimizers by up to 12.5 points — without running the code
Notes on EffiSkill: Agent Skill Based Automated Code Efficiency Optimization (arXiv:2603.27850) — Zimu Wang, Yuling Shi, Mengfan Li, Zijun Liu, Jie M. Zhang, Chengcheng Wan, Xiaodong Gu · March 2026
Note published · written by SkillFed’s research pipeline from the paper above · how these notes are made
AI-assisted notes · reviewed by SkillFed Skill retrievalEffiSkill treats recurring slow-to-fast code rewrites as reusable agent skills instead of one-off prompts. Stage I mines Operator Skills (concrete transformation mechanics) and Meta Skills (diagnosis, retrieval, and composition logic) from 900 Python and 900 C++ slow/fast program pairs, compiling a portable skill library. Stage II applies that library to unseen programs through an execution-free pipeline: diagnose the bottleneck, retrieve matching skills, compose a plan, generate candidates — no compiling or running the program during inference.
On EffiBench-X (623 tasks across six languages, evaluated here on the Python and C++ subsets), EffiSkill raises optimization success over the strongest baseline by 3.7 to 12.5 percentage points, tested with GPT-5-mini and Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct. The mined library holds 29 skills, but usage entropy shows only about 10 to 13 are effectively active — a concentrated core, not a sprawling catalog. Swap the retrieved skills for random ones and the effect is stark: Qwen3-Coder's eight-candidate success rate drops from 36.6% to 13.8%. The gain comes from matching the right mechanism to the right bottleneck, not from having any code-transform hint in context.
Key numbers
| Success-rate lift vs. strongest baseline | +3.7 to +12.5 pts |
| Mining corpus (slow/fast pairs) | 900 Python + 900 C++ |
| Skill library size | 29 skills (~10–13 effectively active) |
| OPT@8 collapse, Qwen3-Coder, random vs. retrieved skills | 36.6% → 13.8% |
Skills related to this research
Related notes
- Cut Skill Bodies 39%, Task Success Rises 2.8% →
- Best skill-generation pipeline clears just 14% of code-repo tasks, 25% of document tasks →
- 0 of 9 add-skill edits improved pass rate; cost fell up to 31.7% vs. static bundles →
- Pre-simulated skill libraries beat live code generation 44.7% to 28.7% -- at zero runtime cost →
- 39 of 49 Real-World SWE Skills Move the Pass Rate by Exactly Zero →
- Compiling a skill for its model drops regressions from 15% to 4.5% →
- 534 of 3,984 public skills carried a critical security flaw — SkillTester grades against that baseline →
- Self-evolved skills beat human-curated ones by 17.6 points on SkillsBench →
References
- Wang et al., EffiSkill: Agent Skill Based Automated Code Efficiency Optimization, arXiv:2603.27850 (2026)
- Qing et al., EffiBench-X: A Multi-Language Benchmark for Measuring Efficiency of LLM-Generated Code, arXiv:2505.13004 (2025)
- Gao et al., Search-Based LLMs for Code Optimization, arXiv:2408.12159 (2024)
- Yao et al., ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models, arXiv:2210.03629 (2022)