Metrics That Write Themselves: Evolving an Evaluator from Its Own Blind Spots

Agents improve quickly against a reliable automatic metric and stall without one, and the applications that need them most, report generation among them, are the ones nobody knows how to score. Can the metric write itself? Saying what makes an answer good is hard; pointing at something wrong with one is easier, so the metric we evolve is a pool of small Python operators that each flag a candidate for one named defect, or abstain, and vote. Asking a model for operators directly does not work: 183 candidates realise only 96 distinct behaviours, from one narrow region of an enormous space. EvalCEGAR instead borrows counterexample-guided abstraction refinement from program verification. It reads the pool as an abstraction and searches for a collision, two answers the operators score identically, one correct and one not. That pair, not a prompt, is the authoring request, and when a collision defeats every attempt the loop widens what an operator may read rather than resampling. On MBPP+ and HumanEval+, a sandbox whose hidden unit tests give exact ground truth, the loop writes a 55-line operator that closes 15.4% of the gap between flagging nothing and a perfect filter on 428 unseen tasks (+0.0065, p=0.0010) at a quarter of our best hand-written operator's flags. On the benchmark it never saw it matches that operator's effect exactly on a third of the flags. Six of eight runs admit such an operator and all six help out of sample; our 15 hand-written operators applied together as one filter lose accuracy. An LLM judge on the same information ties that delta on a nearly disjoint set of candidates, and charges a model call per candidate forever where the operator charges none.

Reconcile Once, Write Anytime: A Trust-Tiered Librarian and a Multi-Agent Writer for Drift-Free, Point-in-Time Research

Long-form research reports generated by large language models drift, contradict themselves, and lose provenance: the same metric appears with different values, and rumor is quoted as confidently as an audited filing. We present a two-tier agentic system that separates a maintained, point-in-time knowledge library from report writing. A deterministic "librarian" ingests timestamped sources into a trust-tiered ontology, layering evidence cards, an authoritative metric ledger, and a claim graph into an always-current source of truth, not per-query RAG over raw chunks. A portable multi-agent "writer" runtime then composes a contradiction-free, evidence-grounded report at any knowledge cutoff T, reading only evidence with as_of <= T (no look-ahead); red-team verdicts flow back into the librarian. We evaluate on a self-collected, public corpus of 6,130 sources yielding 555,926 evidence cards (SEC EDGAR filings across 295 issuers and 11 sectors, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics releases, and Wikipedia). From the one library we compose four point-in-time reports on distinct theses and run eight reproducible experiments, whose headline metrics come from a deterministic quality-control gate, itself validated by defect-injection meta-evaluation at recall 1.0 and precision 1.0. A shared metric ledger removes 6,845 cross-section contradictions to zero. Tier-first selection is correct on 22/22 gold cases where a popularity-first baseline scores only 9/22; trust tiering leaks zero media-sourced numbers, and no government statistic displaces a company's own filing. A red-team refutation propagates back and self-corrects a later run with zero manual edits. Replay exhibits zero look-ahead violations across seven cutoffs while the library grows from 235,373 to 555,312 cards. Difficulty-tiered model routing exceeds the all-Opus quality ceiling while running 3.7x faster than serial.

Who Grades the Grader? Co-Evolving Evaluation Metrics and Skills for Self-Improving LLM Agents

Self-evolving agent systems improve by creating, revising, and retiring their own skills, but every such loop rests on a hidden assumption: a reliable evaluation metric already exists. In many real applications it does not. We make three claims. First, metrics can be \emph{evolved}: our metric loop searches compositions of small drawback detectors under a full evolutionary lifecycle, trained to agree with a ten-item anchored reference set, regularized by consensus over unlabeled outputs, and audited against a held-out anchor it never reads, yielding a transparent, inspectable metric rather than an opaque judge. Second, since no metric exists to beat, the yardstick is recovering what an accurate metric would have enabled, and \emph{Double Ratchet}, our co-evolution of the metric with a lifecycle-managed skill loop, does so: across code generation (MBPP+), enterprise text-to-SQL (Spider~2.0-Snow), and reference-free report generation, it retains 88--110\% of the held-out lift achieved by the same skill loop driven by ground truth or the best available rubric. Third, safety comes from anchor discipline plus outer audits: removing anchor guards collapses the metric into a vacuous detector while removing the lifecycle does not; and when evolved skills gamed the report rubric, an independent judge caught it, one detector repaired it, and a task-aware judge then preferred the evolved outputs over the pre-evolution baseline in 77\% of decided pairs. We argue this failure-expecting architecture is the right default wherever no reliable automatic verifier exists.

The Blind Curator: How a Biased Judge Silently Disables Skill Retirement in Self-Evolving Agents

A self-evolving agent retires its bad skills by watching them fail, so what happens when the judge cannot see the failures? Skill retirement is the structural constraint that keeps a growing library from drifting below the no-skill baseline, but its guarantee assumes an unbiased reward, which is false for the LLM judges that reference-free tasks force upon us. We show that a biased judge does not merely add noise; it \emph{silently switches off the curator}. We make this precise with a corrupted-reward analysis and, isolating the causal channel by injecting corruption on top of a deterministic reward, a behavioral study on a reference-free report-writing testbed with a code-generation cross-check. Symmetric noise leaves retirement intact, but \emph{false-pass} bias (failures slipping through as passes) disables contribution-based retirement past a sharp threshold that no amount of data can cross. Separating genuine retirement from cap-eviction churn shows this \emph{mechanism} failure is universal, holding across domains and failure rates and sparing only near-zero-false-pass, verifier-like graders. The downstream \emph{outcome}, though, is regime-dependent: eval quality degrades only where the same corruption also starves skill synthesis, and otherwise holds steady, so the disabled curator is \emph{silent}, surfacing in no aggregate metric. The contribution is a behavioral safety result, not a performance one. A cheap defect-injection audit then tells an operator, before deployment, which side of the threshold their judge occupies.

Closing the Feedback Loop: From Experience Extraction to Insight Governance in Verbal Reinforcement Learning

Training-free verbal reinforcement learning enables LLM agents to learn from world feedback -- objective signals such as dynamic task outcomes, market returns, or demand forecasts -- by extracting verbal rules from experience and injecting them as context, updating the agent's behavior without parameter changes. However, in non-stationary environments these agents face a retention-forgetting dilemma: retaining stale insights causes negative transfer, while discarding them causes catastrophic forgetting when conditions recur. We identify four requirements for navigating this dilemma -- outcome-driven evaluation, persistent structured evidence, non-monotonic knowledge lifecycle, and compositional governance -- and show that existing methods invest heavily in experience extraction while underinvesting in insight governance. We propose a three-layer architecture -- rules, evidence, and skills -- connected by a feedback-driven curation loop that closes the governance gap. Rules capture distilled experience from world outcomes; evidence logs track each rule's reliability across episodes; skills govern which rules to apply, how to resolve conflicts, and when to abstain. On financial forecasting as a case study, where world feedback is naturally abundant, noisy, and non-stationary, we show that the same accumulated experience either degrades performance below the zero-shot baseline or dramatically improves accuracy and risk-adjusted returns, depending on whether the curation loop is present.

Ratchet: A Minimal Hygiene Recipe for Self-Evolving LLM Agents

Self-evolving skill libraries, pioneered by Voyager, let frozen LLM agents accumulate reusable knowledge without weight updates, yet recent evaluation shows that LLM-authored skills deliver $+0.0$pp over no-skill baselines while human-curated ones deliver $+16.2$pp: the bottleneck is not skill authoring but lifecycle management. We introduce \textbf{Ratchet}, a single-agent loop in which a frozen LLM writes, retrieves, curates, and retires its own natural-language skills. Ratchet integrates four candidate hygiene mechanisms: outcome-driven retirement, a bounded active-cap, meta-skill authoring guidance, and pattern canonicalisation. On MBPP+ hard-100 with Claude Opus 4.7, Ratchet lifts held-out pass@1 from a $0.258 \pm 0.047$ baseline to a late-window rolling mean of $0.584$ (peak $0.658 \pm 0.042$) across 100 rounds and 3 seeds, a $+0.328 \pm 0.018$ rolling-mean gain where the no-skill control drifts at $+0.002 \pm 0.005$; the same recipe transfers to an agentic solver on SWE-bench Verified ($+0.22$ peak lift over 20 rounds). Eight ablations (A1--A8) reveal that the minimal working recipe is smaller than our design suggests: retirement and the meta-skill authoring prior are load-bearing, while explicit deduplication (canonicalisation, cover-guard) is subsumed by the meta-skill itself. A non-divergence proposition shows that bounded cap and retirement threshold together prevent expected performance from drifting below the no-skills floor.

Library Drift: Diagnosing and Fixing a Silent Failure Mode in Self-Evolving LLM Skill Libraries

Self-evolving skill libraries face a silent failure mode we term \emph{library drift}: unbounded skill accumulation without outcome-driven lifecycle management causes retrieval degradation, false-positive injections, and performance stagnation. Recent evaluation confirms the symptom--LLM-authored skills deliver +0.0pp gain while human-curated ones deliver +16.2pp (SkillsBench)--yet the underlying mechanism has not been isolated. We provide (1) a reproducible trigger: ablations that isolate drift--one disables skill injection (flat floor, +0.002), one imposes premature retirement (active harm, $-$0.019); (2) trace-level diagnostics: an append-only evidence log with per-skill contribution scores, attribution verdicts, and router engagement metrics that make the failure visible before it reaches end-task scores; and (3) a verified fix: a minimal governance recipe (outcome-driven retirement + bounded active-cap + meta-skill authoring prior) that lifts held-out pass@1 from a 0.258 baseline to a late-window mean of 0.584 (rolling gain $+$0.328) on MBPP+ hard-100 over 100 rounds. Eight ablations decompose which governance mechanisms are load-bearing and which are subsumed, providing a concrete playbook for diagnosing library drift in any self-evolving agent.

Hindsight Preference Optimization for Financial Time Series Advisory

Time series models predict numbers; decision-makers need advisory -- directional signals with reasoning, actionable suggestions, and risk management. Training language models for such predictive advisory faces a fundamental challenge: quality depends on outcomes unknown at prediction time. We bridge two ideas from reinforcement learning -- using information unavailable during execution to retrospectively generate training signal, and preference alignment -- and propose Hindsight Preference Optimization: observed outcomes let an LLM judge rank candidate advisories on dimensions that scalar metrics cannot capture, producing preference pairs for DPO without human annotation. We apply this to Vision-Language-Model-based predictive advisories on S&P 500 equity time series, demonstrated by a 4B model outperforming its 235B teacher on both accuracy and advisory quality.

Prompt Optimization Is a Coin Flip: Diagnosing When It Helps in Compound AI Systems

Prompt optimization in compound AI systems is statistically indistinguishable from a coin flip: across 72 optimization runs on Claude Haiku (6 methods $\times$ 4 tasks $\times$ 3 repeats), 49% score below zero-shot; on Amazon Nova Lite, the failure rate is even higher. Yet on one task, all six methods improve over zero-shot by up to $+6.8$ points. What distinguishes success from failure? We investigate with 18,000 grid evaluations and 144 optimization runs, testing two assumptions behind end-to-end optimization tools like TextGrad and DSPy: (A) individual prompts are worth optimizing, and (B) agent prompts interact, requiring joint optimization. Interaction effects are never significant ($p > 0.52$, all $F < 1.0$), and optimization helps only when the task has exploitable output structure -- a format the model can produce but does not default to. We provide a two-stage diagnostic: an \$80 ANOVA pre-test for agent coupling, and a 10-minute headroom test that predicts whether optimization is worthwhile -- turning a coin flip into an informed decision.

Do Agent Rules Shape or Distort? Guardrails Beat Guidance in Coding Agents

Developers increasingly guide AI coding agents through natural language instruction files (e.g., CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules), yet no controlled study has measured whether these rules actually improve agent performance or which properties make a rule beneficial. We scrape 679 such files (25,532 rules) from GitHub and conduct the first large-scale empirical evaluation, running over 5,000 agent runs with a state-of-the-art coding agent on SWE-bench Verified. Rules improve performance by 7--14 percentage points, but random rules help as much as expert-curated ones -- suggesting rules work through context priming rather than specific instruction. Negative constraints ("do not refactor unrelated code") are the only individually beneficial rule type, while positive directives ("follow code style") actively hurt -- a pattern we analyze through the lens of potential-based reward shaping (PBRS). Moreover, individual rules are mostly harmful in isolation yet collectively helpful, with no degradation up to 50 rules. These findings expose a hidden reliability risk -- well-intentioned rules routinely degrade agent performance -- and provide a clear principle for safe agent configuration: constrain what agents must not do, rather than prescribing what they should.