With models getting stronger, evaluations have grown more complex, testing multiple skills in one benchmark and even in the same instance at once. However, skill-wise performance is obscured when inspecting aggregate accuracy, under-utilizing the rich signal modern benchmarks contain. We propose an automatic approach to recover the underlying skills relevant for any evaluation instance, by way of inspecting model-generated rationales. After validating the relevance of rationale-parsed skills and inferring skills for $46$k instances over $12$ benchmarks, we observe many skills to be common across benchmarks, resulting in the curation of hundreds of skill-slices (i.e. sets of instances testing a common skill). Inspecting accuracy over these slices yields novel insights on model trade-offs: e.g., compared to GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, on average, Gemini 1.5 Pro is $18\%$ more accurate in "computing molar mass", but $19\%$ less accurate in "applying constitutional law", despite the overall accuracies of the three models differing by a mere $0.4\%$. Furthermore, we demonstrate the practical utility of our approach by showing that insights derived from skill slice analysis can generalize to held-out instances: when routing each instance to the model strongest on the relevant skills, we see a $3\%$ accuracy improvement over our $12$ dataset corpus. Our skill-slices and framework open a new avenue in model evaluation, leveraging skill-specific analyses to unlock a more granular and actionable understanding of model capabilities.