# Grounded Checklist Partial Credit for Agent Skill Trajectories

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27487 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.27487/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent skill learning and evolution, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 29 of its 36 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent skill learning and evolution](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-skill-learning-and-evolution/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.11868/) (2026)
- [HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08775/) (2025)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.13178/) (2024)
- [WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04770/) (2024)
- [Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21504/) (2025)
- [OpenRubrics: Towards Scalable Synthetic Rubric Generation for Reward Modeling and LLM Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.07743/) (2025)
- [SoK: Agentic Skills -- Beyond Tool Use in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.20867/) (2026)
- [WebCanvas: Benchmarking Web Agents in Online Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12373/) (2024)
- [CheckEval: A reliable LLM-as-a-Judge framework for evaluating text generation using checklists](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.18771/) (2024)
- [FineSurE: Fine-grained Summarization Evaluation using LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.00908/) (2024)
- [Mind2Web 2: Evaluating Agentic Search with Agent-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.21506/) (2025)
- [Organizing, Orchestrating, and Benchmarking Agent Skills at Ecosystem Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.02176/) (2026)
- [TICKing All the Boxes: Generated Checklists Improve LLM Evaluation and Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03608/) (2024)
- [LMUnit: Fine-grained Evaluation with Natural Language Unit Tests](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.13091/) (2024)
- [AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.14465/) (2026)
- [QA-LIGN: Aligning LLMs through Constitutionally Decomposed QA](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08123/) (2025)
- [RubricBench: Aligning Model-Generated Rubrics with Human Standards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.01562/) (2026)
- [Inference-Time Scaling of Verification: Self-Evolving Deep Research Agents via Test-Time Rubric-Guided Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.15808/) (2026)
- [Learning to Judge: LLMs Designing and Applying Evaluation Rubrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.08672/) (2026)
- [Think Together and Work Better: Combining Humans' and LLMs' Think-Aloud Outcomes for Effective Text Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.07355/) (2024)
- [Are Checklists Really Useful for Automatic Evaluation of Generative Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.15218/) (2025)
- [Agent Skill Evaluation and Evolution: Frameworks and Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.11435/) (2026)
- [Willful Disobedience: Automatically Detecting Failures in Agentic Traces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.23806/) (2026)
- [SkillJuror: Measuring How Agent Skill Organization Changes Runtime Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.11543/) (2026)
- [AutoChecklist: Composable Pipelines for Checklist Generation and Scoring with LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.07019/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [One Skill Too Many: How Co-Installed Skills Conflict in Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.11647/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Language-model agents increasingly tackle long-horizon tasks in interactive environments, yet their evaluation commonly relies on task-level success rates by reducing an entire execution trajectory to whether the task passes an official verifier. This binary score hides partial progress and is particularly limited for procedural agent skill evaluations, since a skill can alter execution without changing the final outcome. While checklists provide finer-grained evaluation by scoring individual task requirements, costly manual authoring and unreliable automatic generation make trustworthy evaluation difficult to scale. To address these challenges, we introduce Grounded Checklist Partial Credit (GCPC), a human-governed and LLM-instantiated partial-credit evaluation of agent trajectories. Humans define reusable rules once, from which an LLM instantiates a task-specific checklist grounded in the task instruction and official verifier. To keep judgment tied to evidence, a judge scores each item from execution log evidence alone and abstains when evidence is missing. A separate scripted step then applies the official verifier outcome to the score. Across a 4,455-trajectory, deduplicated SkillsBench evaluation population, GCPC better discriminates official PASS and FAIL outcomes than holistic judging on the shared subset (AUC 0.689 vs. 0.619). Human evaluation on 96 trajectories from 12 tasks shows that GCPC aligns more closely with human assessments of progress. Applied to 1,946 matched with/without-skill pairs, GCPC exposes the effects hidden by pass@1: among 879 pairs whose binary outcome does not change, 20.9% improve by more than 0.10 while 18.7% regress by the same margin. The GCPC pipeline also transfers to Terminal-Bench and SWE-bench, demonstrating applicability beyond skill-conditioned evaluation.