Large Language Models are commonly judged by their scores on standard benchmarks, yet such scores often overstate real capability since they mask the mix of skills a task actually demands. For example, ARC is assumed to test reasoning, while HellaSwag is designed to evaluate commonsense. However, we lack a systematic way to verify if these benchmarks actually measure these labels. We introduce Benchmark Profiling, a diagnostic framework that decomposes benchmark performance into ten cognitively grounded abilities. The method combines gradient-based importance scoring with targeted parameter ablation to compute an Ability Impact Score (AIS) that quantifies how much each ability contributes to a model's success on a given benchmark. Profiling three instruction-tuned models across ten widely used benchmarks yields four key findings: (i) most benchmarks draw on several abilities rather than one, (ii) datasets with similar labels rely on distinct ability mixtures, (iii) code-generation benchmarks reward broad, multi-skill improvement and thus show only modest gains from narrow domain-specific fine-tuning, and (iv) abilities irrelevant to the task could negatively affect performance. Benchmark Profiling therefore explains why performance gains do not always translate into user-perceived competence and offers a transparent tool for benchmark audit and model interpretability.