AI Safety Considerations for Agents With Limited Time to Act

Agentic frameworks are the software layer through which AI agents act in the world. Existing safety methods intervene on the model and therefore remain conditional on unverifiable properties of learned behavior. We introduce containment verification, which locates safety guarantees in the agentic framework itself. Under havoc oracle semantics, the AI is modeled as an unconstrained oracle over the framework's typed action space, and the verified containment layer must enforce the boundary policy for every typed action value the AI can emit. For boundary-enforceable properties, expressed over modeled boundary events, action arguments, and state, we prove a universal guarantee by forward-simulation refinement and mechanize it in Dafny. We instantiate the paradigm by verifying PocketFlow, a minimalist agentic LLM framework, and use an agentic synthesis pipeline to generate the specification, operational model, and refinement proof under an information barrier against tautological specifications. To our knowledge, this is the first deductive formal verification of an agentic framework. The guarantee is independent of alignment because it quantifies over the framework's typed action boundary rather than over model behavior.

This position paper argues that enforcing LLM agent safety within a single abstraction layer is not merely suboptimal but categorically insufficient for deployed LLM agents -- a structural consequence of how agent execution works, not a contingent limitation of current systems. The three dimensions that jointly constitute safe operation -- semantic intent and policy compliance, environmental validity, and dynamical feasibility -- each depend on a strictly distinct set of information that becomes available at different stages of execution. No single guardrail can certify all three. We argue that the community must respond with a contract-based architecture in which each safety dimension is enforced by an independently certified layer whose probabilistic guarantee satisfies the next layer's assumption. We sketch such an architecture and derive the compositional system-level safety bounds it admits via the chain rule of probability. Three open problems stand between this and a deployable standard: bound estimation from non-i.i.d.\ traces, graceful degradation of contracts under deployment drift, and extension to multi-agent settings -- the most important unfinished business in LLM agent runtime assurance.

Safety alignment for large language models (LLMs) in conversational settings is largely framed around whether to answer or refuse a request. In agentic settings, however, the same models must decide whether to act as permission-critical evidence emerges during execution. This creates a distinct challenge: apparent risk, action permissibility, and task competence are easily confounded, making agentic over-refusal difficult to distinguish from ordinary task failure. To address this, we introduce AgentBound, the first four-way counterfactual generation-and-evaluation framework for tool-using agent safety. AgentBound transforms the same executable workflow by independently varying apparent risk and action permissibility, enabling controlled comparisons of risky-looking but authorized tasks and routine-looking but unauthorized tasks. These comparisons jointly diagnose over-refusal and unsafe compliance while controlling for task competence. We instantiate AgentBound as a human-validated 4,000-task evaluation suite with trajectory-based and post-state-based judgments. Across 17 model and harness configurations, high safety frequently coexists with poor authorized-task completion: GPT-5.5 blocks 99.5% of routine-looking unauthorized actions yet completes only 28.7% of risky-looking authorized tasks. We further train a lightweight runtime calibration module that improves authorized-task completion by 18.2% on average across 10 evaluated configurations, while improving unsafe-action blocking by 5.4% on average. These show that effective agentic alignment requires action decisions to track permission-relevant execution evidence, rather than refusal strength alone.