Building and scaling computer-using agents (CUAs) across desktop, mobile, and web environments requires reliable task-completion verification for data curation, evaluation, and reinforcement learning. Typical automated approaches prompt vision-language models (VLMs) to judge trajectories or generate programs to inspect application state. However, both rely on partial views of complex digital environments. VLM judges are restricted to supplied observations, while generated programs depend on accessible state. These views can omit decisive evidence or leave completion judgments unsupported. Tailoring separate verifiers to different platforms and access settings adds further engineering cost. We present VeriCUA, a platform-agnostic framework for verification through agentic exploration. It treats verification as dynamic evidence gathering and assessment within a shared procedure for online and offline settings across platforms and observation modalities. After inspecting the available context to construct a task rubric, the verifier selects GUI or code checks for unresolved requirements and combines their findings under explicit evidence rules. Experiments show improved agreement with reference labels over the compared baselines across these settings, with the largest offline gains on hard cases and stronger rejection of false completion claims online. Further analyses connect these gains to complementary evidence and test-time exploration.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: VeriCUA inspects the available environment or recording before constructing a rubric, then gathers evidence to verify its requirements.
Figure 2: VeriCUA gathers evidence from retained trajectories and, when accessible, the current interface and underlying machine state. Each read retains its source attributes.
Environment
Judge
Prec
Rec
F1
Acc
False Positive Rate ↓
Decided
Decided Acc
AndroidWorld
VLM judge
79.3
69.7
74.2
78.4
15.4
100%
78.4%
Auto-Generated verifier
77.8
84.8
81.2
82.4
16.9
100%
82.4%
VeriCUA
90.6
87.9
89.2
90.5
7.7
82%
95.1%
OSWorld
VLM judge
68.2
75.0
71.4
73.4
27.9
100%
73.4%
Auto-Generated verifier
70.6
78.1
74.2
75.9
25.9
100%
75.9%
VeriCUA
80.3
71.3
75.5
79.5
13.9
78%
88.7%
Table 1: Performance in online environments.
Judge
OSReward-Hard
OSReward
WebArena
AndroidWorld
OSWorld
Acc
BalAcc
Acc
BalAcc
Acc
BalAcc
Acc
BalAcc
Acc
BalAcc
TRM
57.4
64.8
82.2
83.1
79.6
79.8
88.3
89.6
80.3
73.7
CUAJudge
63.4
62.5
83.7
82.6
81.3
81.8
91.2
90.7
83.4
78.2
OS-Themis
65.7
63.2
80.2
79.8
75.4
74.3
89.4
89.0
82.1
79.0
VeriCUA
70.4
68.3
87.2
86.3
82.7
83.1
94.3
94.1
86.3
81.2
Table 2: Performance in offline verification.
Figure 3: Each metric of VeriCUA with GUI actions alone and with the hybrid action space on the online AndroidWorld suite. Hollow markers are GUI only, filled markers the hybrid space, and the column at the right gives the change.
Figure 4: More observation for a single-call judge. (a) The OSReward judge reading the last N frames of each trajectory, with VeriCUA at the right; OSReward’s default is five. (b) The WebArena judges reading a11ytrees alone or with screenshots, against VeriCUA (dashed).
Figure 5: (a) Combining verifier passes improves agreement and decision rate. (b) Rejection of the agent’s false completion reports.
Judge
OSReward
OSReward-Hard
TRM (N=10)
83.5
58.5
CUAJudge
84.8
64.5
VeriCUA
86.4
68.7
Table 3: Accuracy under matched budgets.
Judge
Acc
BalAcc
Flash
Pro
Δ
Flash
Pro
Δ
CUAJudge
63.4
62.7
− 0.7
62.5
58.4
− 4.1
OS-Themis
65.7
66.1
+0.4
63.2
61.1
− 2.1
VeriCUA
70.4
73.1
+2.7
68.3
69.2
+0.9
Table 4: Backbone comparison on OSReward-Hard.
Figure 6: Failure precision and retention.
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Stage
Aspect
Online environment
Recorded trajectory
Inspect context
application context
packages, directories, stores, and exposed schemas
recorded steps, frames, and structured observations
Synthesize rubric
grounded task requirements
instruction and observed machine context
instruction and observed recording context
Explore
evidence gathering
adaptive GUI reads and code checks, including synthesized checkers
up to K audit paths, seeking support and refutations
attested types
environment read, UI dump, harness artifact
post-effect frame, precise read, computation, structured state
source attributes
persistence, persistent or volatile
frame timing, before or after the relevant action
Arbitrate
requirement confirmation
one persistent attested confirmation
attested support from every completed path
Appendix
Table A.1: What each setting determines in the shared procedure.
Table C.6: OS-Themis budget ablation, mean balanced accuracy.
OSReward-Hard
OSReward full
Judge
Acc
BalAcc
Acc
BalAcc
VeriCUA (Gemini 3 Flash)
70.4
68.3
87.2
86.3
Gemini 3 Flash
57.0
65.2
87.0
88.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro
61.6
61.6
87.9
88.2
Claude Sonnet 4.6
59.2
68.1
87.7
88.9
Claude Opus 4.6
67.3
68.6
89.5
90.2
Appendix
Table C.7: The OSReward single-call judge by backbone, with VeriCUA for reference.
Judge
Acc
BalAcc
Flash
Pro
Δ
Flash
Pro
Δ
VLM judge
78.4
79.7
+1.3
77.5
78.5
+1.0
Auto-generated verifier
82.4
85.1
+2.7
82.7
85.4
+2.7
VeriCUA
90.5
91.9
+1.4
90.3
91.8
+1.5
Appendix
Table C.8: Accuracy and balanced accuracy in the online AndroidWorld environment with each framework on the flash and pro tiers.
Setting
Method
Tokens
offline, WebArena (tree-fed, flash)
three judges together (4 calls)
43K–61K
offline, WebArena (GUI, pro)
three judges together (4 calls)
25K
offline, OSReward (GUI)
three judges together (4 calls)
33K–35K
offline, WebArena
VeriCUA
150K–208K
offline, OSReward
VeriCUA
345K–378K
online, first suite
auto-generated verifier
16.2K (60 s)
Appendix
Table C.9: Cost per trajectory or episode.
Dataset
Total N
Initial fail
Selected fail
Retained (%)
Correct / n
Prec. (%)
Correct / n
Prec. (%)
WebArena
715
381/431
88.4
195/212
92.0
49.2
OSReward full
1019
524/625
83.8
166/179
92.7
28.6
OSReward-Hard
284
148/185
80.0
48/54
88.9
29.2
Appendix
Table C.10: Initial failure judgments and the subset retained after exploration.
Figure D.1 : A false completion claim refuted from the media store. The agent recorded three clips for one requested video, and both baselines certified the run.
Figure D.2 : A success that only the app’s store can attest. The queue is read from the playback database in the asked order, while both baselines fail the run.
Figure D.3 : A long desktop recording that every judge passes on the finished export. The verifier reads the preview frame and finds the text at the top rather than centered.
Figure D.4 : A web trajectory whose final screen shows cheap shoes. The a11ytree names the page a keyword search rather than the category page and lists prices above the limit.
Figure D.5 : A mobile recording whose answer reads well. The map 18 steps before the end shows a closer park than the one the agent chose, and two of three judges passed it.
Verifying the success of computer use agent (CUA) trajectories is a critical challenge: without reliable verification, neither evaluation nor training signal can be trusted. In this paper, we present lessons learned from building a best-in-class verifier for web tasks we call the Universal Verifier. We design the Universal Verifier around four key principles: 1) constructing rubrics with meaningful, non-overlapping criteria to reduce noise; 2) separating process and outcome rewards that yield complementary signals, capturing cases where an agent follows the right steps but gets blocked or succeeds through an unexpected path; 3) distinguishing between controllable and uncontrollable failures scored via a cascading-error-free strategy for finer-grained failure understanding; and 4) a divide-and-conquer context management scheme that attends to all screenshots in a trajectory, improving reliability on longer task horizons. We validate these findings on CUAVerifierBench, a new set of CUA trajectories with both process and outcome human labels, showing that our Universal Verifier agrees with humans as often as humans agree with each other. We report a reduction in false positive rates to near zero compared to baselines like WebVoyager (≥ 45%) and WebJudge (≥ 22%). We emphasize that these gains stem from the cumulative effect of the design choices above. We also find that an auto-research agent achieves 70% of expert quality in 5% of the time, but fails to discover all strategies required to replicate the Universal Verifier. We open-source our Universal Verifier system along with CUAVerifierBench; available at https://github.com/microsoft/fara.
Reinforcement learning for computer-use agents increasingly relies on proactive reward agents that interact with the post-execution GUI environment to verify what recorded screenshots cannot reveal. The reliability of such verification hinges on two coupled decisions: what to check and when to stop. Existing methods leave these decisions to prompted foundation models. However, neither scaling up the model nor providing few-shot examples reliably improves verification: prompted Judges ranging from 4B to GPT-5.4 all plateau at 68%-70% macro-average agreement. This is because the value of a check depends on the environment rather than the task alone, and becomes apparent only through execution. Learning from execution is itself constrained, as the Actor's terminal state cannot be faithfully replicated during training, allowing only one verification attempt per state. We introduce VeriCUA, a proactive reward agent that learns its verification strategy from these single attempts. A trainable Judge decides what to check and when to stop, while a frozen Probe executes the checks in the live environment. Online reinforcement learning optimizes the Judge for both verdict correctness and efficient Probe use, with returns normalized across terminal states. Trained only on OSWorld and evaluated without further training on MobileWorld and WebArena-Verified, VeriCUA achieves the highest reward agreement across all three benchmarks and lies on the agreement-cost Pareto frontier among proactive verifiers. It surpasses few-shot GPT-5.4 by 5.36 points with 47.6%-59.8% fewer Probe tokens, and even a 1B VeriCUA exceeds every prompted Judge. As the reward for Actor RL, it raises task success by 3.21 points overall and 5.40 points on held-out multi-application tasks. These results identify the verification strategy, not verifier scale, as the key to reliable GUI rewards.
Zhizhou Wang, Yaxi Lu, Zhong Zhang +4
Southwest Jiaotong University · Tsinghua University · University of Electronic Science and Technology of China +3
We present OpenComputer, a verifier-grounded framework for constructing verifiable software worlds for computer-use agents. OpenComputer integrates four components: (1) app-specific state verifiers that expose structured inspection endpoints over real applications, (2) a self-evolving verification layer that improves verifier reliability using execution-grounded feedback, (3) a task-generation pipeline that synthesizes realistic and machine-checkable desktop tasks, and (4) an evaluation harness that records full trajectories and computes auditable partial-credit rewards. In its current form, OpenComputer covers 33 desktop applications and 1,000 finalized tasks spanning browsers, office tools, creative software, development environments, file managers, and communication applications. Experiments show that OpenComputer's hard-coded verifiers align more closely with human adjudication than LLM-as-judge evaluation, especially when success depends on fine-grained application state. Frontier agents struggle with end-to-end completion despite partial progress, and open-source models exhibit sharp drops from their OSWorld-Verified scores, exposing a persistent gap in robust computer automation.
Jinbiao Wei, Qianran Ma, Yilun Zhao +4
Yale NLP Lab · University of Pennsylvania · University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill