Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Daily-updated collection of autonomous AI agent papers
.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-autonomous-agents-papers-guide/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-13 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 60% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 19% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 31% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 60% | 0% |
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 89% | 0% |
A daily-updated collection of research papers on autonomous AI agents — systems that use LLMs for planning, reasoning, tool use, and multi-step task execution. Covers the full agent stack from foundational prompting techniques (ReAct, Chain-of-Thought) to multi-agent systems, memory architectures, and real-world deployments. Organized chronologically with category tags for easy navigation.
Autonomous Agents
├── Planning & Reasoning
│ ├── Chain-of-Thought (CoT, ToT, GoT)
│ ├── ReAct (Reasoning + Acting)
│ ├── Reflexion (Self-reflection)
│ └── LATS (Language Agent Tree Search)
├── Tool Use & Actions
│ ├── Function calling
│ ├── Code execution
│ ├── Web browsing
│ └── API interaction
├── Memory Systems
│ ├── Short-term (context window)
│ ├── Long-term (vector stores)
│ ├── Episodic (experience replay)
│ └── Procedural (learned strategies)
├── Multi-Agent Systems
│ ├── Debate/discussion (ChatDev, MetaGPT)
│ ├── Hierarchical (manager/worker)
│ ├── Collaborative (shared goals)
│ └── Competitive (adversarial)
└── Applications
├── Software engineering (SWE-agent, Devin)
├── Scientific research (AI Scientist)
├── Web automation (WebArena)
└── Game playing (Voyager)| Paper | Year | Key Contribution | |-------|------|-----------------| | ReAct | 2023 | Interleaving reasoning and acting | | Toolformer | 2023 | Self-taught tool use | | Voyager | 2023 | Lifelong learning agent in Minecraft | | AutoGPT | 2023 | Autonomous goal-directed agent | | MetaGPT | 2023 | Multi-agent software company | | Reflexion | 2023 | Verbal self-reflection for learning | | SWE-agent | 2024 | Autonomous software engineering | | AI Scientist | 2024 | Autonomous research paper generation | | Claude Computer Use | 2024 | GUI agent via screenshots | | OpenHands | 2024 | Open platform for AI agents |
pythonimport arxiv from datetime import datetime, timedelta def find_agent_papers(days=7, max_results=30): """Find recent autonomous agent papers.""" queries = [ "abs:autonomous agent AND abs:large language model", "abs:LLM agent AND (abs:planning OR abs:tool use)", "abs:multi-agent AND abs:LLM", ] seen = set() papers = [] for query in queries: search = arxiv.Search( query=query, max_results=max_results, sort_by=arxiv.SortCriterion.SubmittedDate, ) cutoff = datetime.now() - timedelta(days=days) for r in search.results(): if (r.entry_id not in seen and r.published.replace(tzinfo=None) > cutoff): seen.add(r.entry_id) papers.append({ "title": r.title, "url": r.entry_id, "date": r.published.strftime("%Y-%m-%d"), "categories": r.categories, }) papers.sort(key=lambda x: x["date"], reverse=True) return papers for p in find_agent_papers(days=14): print(f"[{p['date']}] {p['title']}")
pythonbenchmarks = { "SWE-bench": { "task": "Resolve real GitHub issues", "metric": "% resolved", "top_score": "49% (Claude 3.5 + SWE-agent)", }, "WebArena": { "task": "Complete web tasks in realistic sites", "metric": "Task success rate", "top_score": "35.8%", }, "GAIA": { "task": "General AI assistant tasks", "metric": "Accuracy across levels", "top_score": "Level 1: 75%, Level 3: 30%", }, "AgentBench": { "task": "8 diverse agent environments", "metric": "Overall score", }, "ToolBench": { "task": "API tool selection and chaining", "metric": "Pass rate", }, } for name, info in benchmarks.items(): print(f"\n{name}: {info['task']}") print(f" Metric: {info['metric']}") if "top_score" in info: print(f" SOTA: {info['top_score']}")
markdown### Foundations 1. "Chain-of-Thought Prompting" (Wei et al., 2022) 2. "ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting" (Yao et al., 2023) 3. "Toolformer" (Schick et al., 2023) ### Planning & Memory 4. "Tree of Thoughts" (Yao et al., 2023) 5. "Reflexion" (Shinn et al., 2023) 6. "Generative Agents" (Park et al., 2023) ### Multi-Agent 7. "MetaGPT" (Hong et al., 2023) 8. "AutoGen" (Wu et al., 2023) 9. "ChatDev" (Qian et al., 2023) ### Applications 10. "SWE-agent" (Yang et al., 2024) 11. "The AI Scientist" (Lu et al., 2024)
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-13 | fail→pass | 13,782 | 11,652 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,163 | 3,453 | +60% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 12,369 | 17,300 | +40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,456 | 3,491 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 22,810 | 24,516 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,753 | 5,715 | +52% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 21,075 | 15,475 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,726 | 4,420 | +19% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 5,648 | 4,525 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 918 | 2,313 | +152% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 6,513 | 3,941 | -39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,003 | 2,223 | +122% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 12,824 | 8,106 | -37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,270 | 2,973 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 9,566 | 4,139 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,629 | 2,304 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→fail | 5,006 | 1,952 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 760 | 1,903 | +150% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 11,403 | 9,308 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,041 | 3,275 | +60% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 8,223 | 5,272 | -36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,398 | 2,526 | +81% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 9,670 | 8,545 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,617 | 3,064 | +89% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 8,346 | 5,354 | -36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,473 | 2,392 | +62% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 10,755 | 9,257 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,740 | 2,801 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 10,970 | 8,207 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,696 | 2,781 | +64% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 18,889 | 24,513 | +30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,991 | 2,569 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 14,149 | 2,065 | -85% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,311 | 1,930 | -16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 20,391 | 18,517 | -9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,675 | 5,122 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | 14,884 | 12,196 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,214 | 3,449 | +56% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 15,040 | 11,317 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,220 | 3,976 | +23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 37,421 | 40,047 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,557 | 8,959 | +37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 14,474 | 11,599 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,782 | 3,786 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +32 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.