Discovering Agentic Safety Specifications from 1-Bit Danger Signals

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly automate complex tasks by integrating language models with external tools and environments. However, their autonomy poses significant safety risks: agents may execute destructive commands, leak sensitive data, or violate domain constraints. Existing safety approaches face a fundamental tradeoff: hand-crafted rules are interpretable but brittle, with overly conservative rules blocking safe operations (high false positives) while permissive rules miss unsafe behaviors (high false negatives). Neural classifiers lack the interpretability required for safety-critical deployments. We present AutoSpec, a framework that automatically evolves deployed expert-designed safety rules from user safe/unsafe annotations through counterexample-guided inductive synthesis (CEGIS) guided by inductive logic programming (ILP). Starting from the expert rules and a stream of annotated traces, AutoSpec iteratively evaluates rules, mines false-positive and false-negative counterexamples, uses ILP to learn which predicates discriminate them, generates candidate rule edits, and verifies candidates to select the best revision. The key insight is that ILP efficiently identifies predicates that appear frequently in false negatives but rarely in false positives (or vice versa), dramatically pruning the exponential search space of rule edits. This continues until convergence, producing interpretable rules that balance precision and recall. We evaluate AutoSpec on 291 execution traces spanning code execution and embodied agent domains. AutoSpec raises rule F1 to 0.98 and 0.93 across the two domains, achieving up to 94% false positive reduction while maintaining high recall, and converges within 4-5 iterations. The ILP-guided approach achieves up to 4.8x higher F1 than heuristic CEGIS. The learned rules are human-readable, auditable, and generalize to unseen scenarios.

AI agents extend large language models (LLMs) with external tools, enabling them to perform complex tasks and translate model outputs into consequential real-world actions. Yet LLMs often become substantially less safe when deployed as agents, and the source of this degradation remains poorly understood. In this paper, we identify schema-formatted tool specifications as a primary source of agent safety degradation and show, through white-box representation analysis, that they weaken the model's internal refusal signals and contribute to unsafe tool execution. Building on this finding, we propose SafeKeep, an inference-time safeguard that decouples safety judgment from tool execution: it assesses requests using flattened textual tool specifications while retaining the original schema-formatted specifications for execution. Across two representative benchmarks and four LLMs, including both white-box and black-box models, SafeKeep increases the average refusal rate for harmful requests from 23.8% to 70.6% and reduces the average attack success rate under observation-level prompt injection from 25.6% to 2.5%. It also outperforms existing safeguards and preserves task-handling capability. We release the code and data at https://github.com/snowcatsmoking/SafeKeep .

Are tool-calling LLM agents equally safe throughout a conversation? We discover they are not: agents are most vulnerable at the very start of a session and become substantially safer after a few regular agentic tasks -- a phenomenon we term the cold-start safety gap. To study this systematically, we introduce Safety Over Depth for Agents (SODA), a benchmark that controls how many regular agentic tasks the agent completes before encountering a safety threat, supporting up to 20 preceding tasks. Evaluating 7 models from 4 families, safety improves by 9--52% as the number of preceding regular agentic tasks increases from zero to twenty. Representation analysis confirms that model hidden states gradually shift toward a safety-aligned region as more preceding tasks are present. By systematically studying which part of the preceding conversation matters most, we find that the regular agentic tasks themselves are the primary driver of safety, while the agent's own prior responses have less effect on safety but are essential for preserving later utility. This conclusion is further supported by evaluation on open-source safety benchmarks (AgentHarm, Agent Safety Bench) and utility benchmarks (BFCL, API-Bank), confirming that warming up the agent with regular agentic tasks before deployment makes it safer and preserves full capability. Based on these findings, we recommend a simple deployment strategy: having the agent complete a few regular agentic tasks before possible exposure to safety-critical requests mitigates the cold-start safety gap. Our code is available at https://github.com/Trustworthy-ML-Lab/Agent-Cold-Start-Safety-Gap