Why Does Agentic Safety Fail to Generalize Across Tasks?

Computer-use agents (CUAs) have made rapid progress in completing complex tasks through graphical user interfaces, yet post-training centered on task success alone does not induce reliable safety behavior. A reliable CUA must condition its execution on risk: it should complete ordinary benign tasks, avoid environmental hazards and continue when a safe completion path remains, and refuse when the goal is harmful or no safe path exists. To learn this conditional policy, we develop Safety and Capability Optimization for Policy Execution (SCOPE), which jointly post-trains a CUA for task-execution capability and safety-aware decision making. To provide aligned training data for this joint objective, we further introduce SCOPE-Gen, an automated pipeline that synthesizes verifiable capability tasks and converts them into paired environment-risk variants while preserving their original goals. Using the resulting tasks, we construct SATraj-OS, a trajectory dataset comprising capability demonstrations, safe continuations, and explicit refusals. SCOPE first learns from all three trajectory types through supervised fine-tuning and then further improves task completion through online reinforcement learning. Starting from Qwen3.5-9B, SCOPE-RL achieves a 54.17% task success rate on OSWorld and a 64.30% attack-avoidance rate on OS-BLIND, yielding the best aggregate capability--safety score of 58.80% among the evaluated agents. Ablations reveal asymmetric but complementary roles for the two forms of safety supervision: refusal trajectories account for most of the attack-avoidance gain, whereas risk-handling trajectories preserve greater task utility at comparable attack-avoidance levels.

Agent safety is moving from content moderation toward preventing operational failures before tool-using agents act. We propose Janus, a foresight-oriented framework for long-horizon agent safety that trains guards to anticipate delayed risks from partial trajectories. Janus synthesizes diverse agent trajectories via multi-agent simulation and learns a shared policy with two coupled tasks: an anticipation task that forecasts safety-relevant futures and an adjudication task that decides safety from both the observed prefix and anticipated future. The two tasks are jointly optimized with CoAA-RL, which rewards forecasts by their utility for downstream safety judgment. The resulting guard model, Vanguard, blocks unsafe actions before execution. Across four agent-safety benchmarks, Vanguard improves average protection by 15.9 percentage points over baseline guards while increasing benign task completion by 5.1 percentage points.

Can large language model agents discover hidden safety objectives through experience alone? We introduce EPO-Safe (Experiential Prompt Optimization for Safe Agents), a framework where an LLM iteratively generates action plans, receives sparse binary danger warnings, and evolves a natural language behavioral specification through reflection. Unlike standard LLM reflection methods that rely on rich textual feedback (e.g., compiler errors or detailed environment responses), EPO-Safe demonstrates that LLMs can perform safety reasoning from a strictly impoverished signal in structured, low-dimensional environments: the agent never observes the hidden performance function $R^*$, only a single bit per timestep indicating that an action was unsafe. We evaluate on five AI Safety Gridworlds (Leike et al., 2017) and five text-based scenario analogs where visible reward $R$ may diverge from $R^*$. EPO-Safe discovers safe behavior within 1-2 rounds (5-15 episodes), producing human-readable specifications with correct explanatory hypotheses about hazards (e.g., "X cells are directionally hazardous: entering from the north is dangerous"). Critically, we show that standard reward-driven reflection actively degrades safety: agents reflecting on reward alone use the loop to justify and accelerate reward hacking, proving that reflection must be paired with a dedicated safety channel to discover hidden constraints. We further evaluate robustness to noisy oracles: even when 50% of non-dangerous steps produce spurious warnings, mean safety performance degrades by only 15% on average, though sensitivity is environment-dependent, as cross-episode reflection naturally filters inconsistent signals. Each evolved specification functions as an auditable set of grounded behavioral rules discovered autonomously through interaction, rather than authored by humans as in Constitutional AI (Bai et al., 2022).