Shared agent configurations show AI delegation is concentrated in mid-wage, bachelor-level occupations, not the highest-paid roles; the occupations adopting agentic workflows diverge sharply from earlier exposure-based risk maps.

Main Finding

The paper introduces the Agentic Adoption Index (AAI), a measure of "delegated exposure" that captures where workers have deliberately built and shared agentic AI workflows. Using ~53k practitioner-authored agent skill descriptions from the Manus Skills Marketplace, embedded with Sentence‑BERT and matched to ~18k O*NET task statements, the authors show that (1) delegation concentrates in occupations different from those flagged by prior exposure measures; (2) the AAI aligns more with what AI can reliably do (technical capability) than with where conversational LLMs are actually used; and (3) agentic adoption follows an inverted-U across wages and education—peaking near bachelor’s-level occupations and falling off at both the low and the high ends—implying feasibility is necessary but not sufficient to explain adoption.

Key Points

• Delegated exposure is a distinct fourth layer of AI exposure (capability → availability → observed use → delegated adoption). It records explicit, reusable automation artifacts (agent configurations), indicating workers have committed tasks to AI rather than merely experimented.
• The Agentic Adoption Index (AAI) is constructed by semantically matching practitioner-authored skill.md files to O*NET task statements and aggregating similarities to the occupation level weighted by task importance.
• Data sample: 53,515 work-related, non‑duplicate Manus skill descriptions (filtered from ~117k collected skills) matched to 17,951 O*NET task statements and aggregated over 748 occupations (wage/education available for 560).
• Embedding and similarity: all‑MiniLM‑L6‑v2 (Sentence‑BERT, 384‑dim) used to generate vectors; cosine similarity between skills and tasks forms the base pairwise score.
• Comparative results: AAI diverges sharply from pre-LLM automation risk (e.g., Frey & Osborne) and from observed conversational LLM use; it tracks capability/feasibility measures more closely (but with notable exceptions at the top of the skill/wage distribution).
• Pattern across skill/wage/education: adoption peaks at occupations with bachelor’s-level typical entry education and mid-to-upper median wages, declining for both lower-paid routine work (explained largely by current technical limits) and the highest-paid / most-educated occupations (not explained by technical feasibility).
• Possible explanations for the top-end shortfall include tasks that resist advance specification (hard-to-formalize expert judgment) and professional discretion or norms that slow codification and public sharing of agent workflows.
• Practical advantages of the AAI: uses practitioner-created, shareable artifacts (revealed preference), is recomputable over time as the marketplace grows, and can serve as an early indicator of where agentic automation is beginning to reshape work.

Data & Methods

• Data sources:
  • Manus Skills Marketplace: collected skill.md files from public repositories (mostly GitHub). Initial collection 117,887 distinct skills → filtered to 56,532 (remove empty/very short descriptions) → GPT‑4o‑mini classifier to retain work-related items → final sample 53,515 skills.
  • O*NET 30.2 (2025): 17,951 task statements with valid importance ratings (out of ~18,797 tasks).
  • Occupational metadata: BLS OES 2025 for median wages, employment, and typical entry education (available for 560 occupations).
  • Comparative exposure measures: Frey & Osborne (pre-AI baseline), RL Feasibility Index (Tomei & Teeselink, capability), Eloundou et al. γ (availability), Massenkoff & McCrory (observed usage).
• Embedding & matching:
  • All texts (skill descriptions and O*NET tasks) embedded with all‑MiniLM‑L6‑v2 (Sentence‑BERT).
  • Cosine similarity computed for each skill–task pair.
  • Task-level exposure: average similarity of a task to all skills (procedure described in SI).
  • Occupation-level AAI: weighted aggregation of task-level exposure using ONET task importance scores; analysis restricted to ONET base SOC codes (748 occupations).
• Robustness and filtering:
  • Excluded skills without execution instructions or with descriptions <100 characters.
  • Used a model-based classifier to filter non-work-related items.
  • Compared AAI distributions to other exposure measures and to wage/education bins.
• Limitations noted by authors: Manus sample reflects contributors who choose to publish skills (early adopters, technically sophisticated, GitHub‑centric), semantic matching depends on embedding quality and may produce false positives/negatives, and AAI measures shareability/generalizability of routines rather than total private adoption.

Implications for AI Economics

• Measurement: Delegated exposure fills an important measurement gap by capturing where agents are deliberately integrated into workflows. It complements capability/availability/observed-use metrics and can be recomputed frequently to track adoption dynamics.
• Targeting policy and training: Because delegation concentrates differently than capability or conversational use, workforce interventions (reskilling, regulation, safety protocols) should not rely solely on capability-based exposure maps. Mid-skilled, bachelor‑degree occupations may face faster-looking agentic change than top professionals or low‑skilled routine jobs.
• Forecasting labor impacts: The inverted‑U pattern implies that highest-paid/professional occupations may be slower to delegate despite technical feasibility; forecasting displacement or task reallocation must account for institutional, normative, and specification-resistance factors, not just technical capability.
• Firm strategy and diffusion: Firms aiming to deploy agentic automation should expect adoption to favor tasks that are both technically feasible and amenable to codification/shared workflows; occupations with strong professional discretion or tacit expertise may require different approaches (co‑design, incentives for codification, or targeted R&D).
• Research agenda: Distinguishing whether the top-end shortfall reflects inherently uncodifiable work versus deliberate withholding (professional norms, regulatory caution) requires triangulation with firm-level deployment data, longitudinal tracking of the Manus marketplace, and qualitative studies of professional practices. Repeated AAI measurement can reveal whether delegation eventually catches up to technical feasibility or whether structural barriers persist.
• Caution for policymakers: Early-agent artifacts reflect the preferences of publicly sharing practitioners; policymakers should combine AAI-style indicators with confidential firm adoption data and usage logs to form a fuller picture before designing labor market or regulatory responses.

Shortcomings to keep in mind: the AAI is an early, revealed‑preference signal from an open‑sharing, developer‑heavy population; semantic matching and embedding choices shape results; and delegation measured via shared skills does not capture private, non‑shared agent deployments or informal prompt use. Despite these caveats, the AAI provides a scalable, timely indicator of where agentic AI is being institutionalized into workflows.