arXiv:2604. 03501v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Experimental evidence suggests that AI tools raise worker productivity, but also that sustained use can erode the expertise on which those gains depend.
arXiv:2606. 29111v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When firms deploy autonomous AI, they must decide how much work to leave to the system and how much to keep workers engaged.
arXiv:2604.22230v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Performance manipulation arises when agents exploit easily measurable, routine tasks to inflate observable outcomes without contributing genu...
arXiv:2606. 07489v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Frontier AI systems are bridging the gap between intelligence and utility by shifting from conversational assistants to autonomous agents that execute tasks end to end.
The paper introduces the Agentic Adoption Index (AAI), a new metric that captures whether workers actually delegate tasks to AI within their workflows, rather than merely measuring potential AI applicability. Using 53,000 agent skill specifications and 18,000 O*NET task statements, the authors find that occupations with high delegation differ from those previously deemed most at risk, that AAI aligns more closely with AI’s capabilities than current usage, and that adoption peaks at mid‑wage, bachelor’s‑level occupations while declining at both ends of the wage and education spectrum. The study highlights that technical availability explains much of the variation, but other factors—such as resistance to specification or professional discretion—also influence who adopts AI. whyItMatters":"The findings suggest that actual AI adoption patterns differ from prior risk assessments, indicating that factors beyond technical feasibility shape who delegates to AI, which has implications for workforce planning and policy."
Agentic AI development today runs on token maxing: buying capability with tokens -- longer reasoning traces, more turns, wider tool payloads, bigger replayed contexts -- so tokens per task grow faster than task value. Falling per-token prices mask the pattern; total spend rises anyway.
arXiv:2605. 24050v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Skill libraries allow LLM agents to load task-specific instructions on demand, letting non-expert users solve domain-specific tasks through natural language without knowing which skills exist or how they work.
The paper discusses how enterprises increasingly deploy AI coding agent harnesses, often purchased from vendors like Anthropic or OpenAI, and how these harnesses dictate model choice, prompt handling, and cost. It introduces a fast, customizable routing system that classifies prompts and strategically routes them to minimize expensive model usage, achieving 14–21% cost savings in a simulated 10,000-seat enterprise. The study also evaluates risks across twenty harnesses, highlights vendor dependence, and proposes an internal control plane for future harness ownership decisions.
arXiv:2607. 06906v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic AI development today runs on token maxing: buying capability with tokens -- longer reasoning traces, more turns, wider tool payloads, bigger replayed contexts -- so tokens per task grow faster than task value.
arXiv:2608.23067v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent Skills are reusable procedural modules that are increasingly injected into coding-agent sessions to encode framework conventions, anti-patterns,...
arXiv:2608.01347v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Coding-agent efficiency cannot be characterized by token count or model price alone. We study how end-to-end cost and task success depend jointly o...
arXiv:2609.09134v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent harnesses (the system prompt, tool set, execution hooks, and context-management scaffolding around a model) are a critical determinant of agentic...
EVOHARNESSBENCH is a new benchmark that tests how LLM-based agents handle changes in their tool, skill, and agent harnesses over time. It includes 17 deterministic harness streams with 802 tasks, 520 tools, 42 skills, and 62 agents, and evaluates agents in two settings: deployment evaluation and self‑evolving adaptation evaluation. The study finds that harness expansion can cause forgetting, adaptation gains are inconsistent, and preserving old competence does not always aid new capability adaptation, highlighting harness evolution as a distinct challenge for agent development.