Skip to content
arXiv Robotics — research abstracts· Jingwen Bai, Guochao Bai, Canbo Zhang, Shuangqi Li, Minchao Hu, Weichun Huang, Shuang Liu·· 6 hours agoSignalEditorial score76

Compile Once, Run Cheap: Frozen, Portable Skills for Embodied Agents, and What Recursive Self-Improvement Adds

Compile Once, Run Cheap: Frozen, Portable Skills for Embodied Agents, and What Recursive Self-Improvement Adds

Summary

This research proposes Skill-RSI, a framework for creating reusable manipulation skills for embodied agents through recursive self-improvement. Skills are compiled in simulation and run as standalone code or under a cheap caller, achieving high success rates on new layouts. The study evaluates performance across 7 RoboTwin 2.0 tasks, demonstrating the effectiveness of inheritance over from-scratch rewriting and the cost-efficiency of frozen skills.

Editorial context

This paper introduces Skill-RSI, a method for creating portable and reusable manipulation skills for embodied agents through recursive self-improvement. The approach involves compiling skills in simulation and testing their performance on new layouts without direct model interaction, showing promising results in efficiency and robustness.

Source: arXiv Robotics — research abstracts · Read original article ↗

Loading article text…

What the source reports

Publisher-reported claims, with original evidence. These results have not been independently verified by RoboSignal.

Environment
SimulationOpen source S2

Reported numbers

  • tasks

    7

    View original evidence
    odel family. On 7 RoboTwin 2.0 tasks with cluttered tables, Claude Code compiled 4 tasks into 7 frozen skills, 5 from a first draft needing only qualification, at USD 4.29-8.22 of author cost each (USD 55 per skill counting the 13 failed campaigns). The other three tasks did not compile in 18 campaigns, including five with GPT-6 and a pre-registered 150-layout run: on the hardest task every campaign scored 78-95 of 1
    Open source S4
  • frozen skills

    4

    View original evidence
    odel family. On 7 RoboTwin 2.0 tasks with cluttered tables, Claude Code compiled 4 tasks into 7 frozen skills, 5 from a first draft needing only qualification, at USD 4.29-8.22 of author cost each (USD 55 per skill counting the 13 failed campaigns). The other three tasks did not compile in 18 campaigns, including five with GPT-6 and a pre-registered 150-layout run: on the hardest task every campaign scored 78-95 of 1
    Open source S4
  • cost per skill

    4.29–8.22

    View original evidence
    odel family. On 7 RoboTwin 2.0 tasks with cluttered tables, Claude Code compiled 4 tasks into 7 frozen skills, 5 from a first draft needing only qualification, at USD 4.29-8.22 of author cost each (USD 55 per skill counting the 13 failed campaigns). The other three tasks did not compile in 18 campaigns, including five with GPT-6 and a pre-registered 150-layout run: on the hardest task every campaign scored 78-95 of 1
    Open source S4
  • failed campaigns

    13

    View original evidence
    odel family. On 7 RoboTwin 2.0 tasks with cluttered tables, Claude Code compiled 4 tasks into 7 frozen skills, 5 from a first draft needing only qualification, at USD 4.29-8.22 of author cost each (USD 55 per skill counting the 13 failed campaigns). The other three tasks did not compile in 18 campaigns, including five with GPT-6 and a pre-registered 150-layout run: on the hardest task every campaign scored 78-95 of 1
    Open source S4
  • successes on new layouts

    148

    View original evidence
    ampaigns found no detectable first-draft effect of practice (minimum detectable effect 14 points). The frozen skills kept 148/150 successes on new layouts with no model and 147/150 with a DeepSeek-flash caller at USD 0.00028-0.00054 per episode; no direct-control baseline was run.
    Open source S6
  • cost per episode

    0.00028–0.00054

    View original evidence
    ampaigns found no detectable first-draft effect of practice (minimum detectable effect 14 points). The frozen skills kept 148/150 successes on new layouts with no model and 147/150 with a DeepSeek-flash caller at USD 0.00028-0.00054 per episode; no direct-control baseline was run.
    Open source S6
  • paper: not_reported
  • code: not_reported
  • weights: not_reported
  • dataset: not_reported
Source excerpts and review record

Automatically extracted; no manual editorial approval recorded.

arXiv:2610.25114v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Embodied AI lacks the data-rich pretraining that gave language models their agents and skills, so new manipulation capability costs demonstrations per task or a frontier model in every episode. We study a third route: a strong general model acts only as an offline author that writes, runs, diagnoses and repairs a manipulation skill in simulation until it passes an exam

Open source S2

odel family. On 7 RoboTwin 2.0 tasks with cluttered tables, Claude Code compiled 4 tasks into 7 frozen skills, 5 from a first draft needing only qualification, at USD 4.29-8.22 of author cost each (USD 55 per skill counting the 13 failed campaigns). The other three tasks did not compile in 18 campaigns, including five with GPT-6 and a pre-registered 150-layout run: on the hardest task every campaign scored 78-95 of 1

Open source S4

00 but had 3-16 safety aborts, failing the gate of 95% success with zero aborts; a 100-episode exam bounds an abort rate only to 3.6%. On hidden layouts, repair that inherits the previous version beat from-scratch rewriting in 8 of 8 controlled campaigns (sign test p = 0.004); an inherit-only lineage attributes most of the gap to inheritance, with development feedback adding a little (3 of 3, p = 0.125). Write-once c

Open source S5

ampaigns found no detectable first-draft effect of practice (minimum detectable effect 14 points). The frozen skills kept 148/150 successes on new layouts with no model and 147/150 with a DeepSeek-flash caller at USD 0.00028-0.00054 per episode; no direct-control baseline was run.

Open source S6

Source:arXiv Robotics — research abstracts · arxiv.org

Timezone · UTC

Article dates follow your selected timezone. Briefing editions use Hong Kong time (UTC+8).