Computer-use agents increasingly tackle tasks ranging from everyday desktop activities to long-horizon professional workflows. Yet interfaces centered on screenshots and mouse-and-keyboard actions can impose a human-interaction prior, requiring repeated screen interpretation while leaving the computer's semantic and programmatic capabilities underexposed. We argue for exposing these capabilities and letting models choose and combine them. We introduce Hybrid Computer Use (HCU), a unified interface for general agents that combines three complementary channels: programmatic interaction through code and command-line tools, semantic interaction through accessibility (AX), and visual interaction through graphical user interfaces (GUI). Our HCU supports efficient AX interaction and guards against stale-state actions during channel switching. A supplementary HCU skill guides agents in selecting and coordinating channels to use the unified interface effectively. Our designed AX tools return compact observations, execute actions in batches, and report their effects as AX diffs, so the model needs fewer round trips. On OSWorld 2.0, HCU achieves the highest Partial and Binary scores among the compared systems. Analyzing agent trajectories, we find that all evaluated models improve with HCU yet allocate work across the channels differently and consistently outperform compared baselines in terms of both efficiency and task success, highlighting the value of unified computer-use interfaces that allow flexible channel selection and combination.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Left: HCU’s programmatic, semantic, and visual channels. Right: OSWorld 2.0 results. Stars mark HCU and the staircase marks the Pareto frontier, detailed in Section 4.2 .
Figure 2: HCU overview. Top: channels, skill, and action guards. Bottom: a compact AX view, batched actions with a wait step, and the returned effect summary and AX diff.
Figure 4: Interface use. (a) Mean per-task tool-call shares (Programmatic: the agent’s programmatic tools; CUA Driver includes browser tools). (b) Within-HCU AX/GUI shares: observation (AX reads, GUI screenshots) versus execution (AX actions, GUI inputs). (c) AX/GUI acting calls with at least two actions (%).
Score (%) ↑
Change with HCU (%) ↓
Model
CUA Driver
HCU
Δ (pp)
Steps
Input
Time
Cost
GPT-5.4
62.30
65.59
+3.29
− 30
− 57
− 30
− 55
Claude Opus 5.5
68.68
71.62
+2.94
− 1
− 32
+6
− 8
Gemini 3.8 Flash
54.67
67.57
+12.90
− 17
− 39
− 29
− 44
Grok 4.7
67.90
74.71
+6.81
− 22
− 18
− 13
− 13
Table 3: HCU versus CUA Driver on OSWorld 1.0. Resource changes are relative to CUA Driver; darker blue indicates larger improvements. Details: Appendix D.1 .
Figure 5: (a) Contributions to the HCU–CUA Driver Score difference, grouped by HCU AX/GUI use. (b) Tasks using each interface’s desktop tools; labels show HCU–CUA Driver differences in points.
Appendix figures & tables25 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Evaluation of HCU across benchmarks and platforms (GPT-5.4). (a) OSWorld 1.0 (Linux, 360 tasks): Score, Cost per task, and tool-call shift from Shell to desktop tools across CUA Driver, evaluated HCU, and released HCU. (b) WeaveBench (Linux, 114 tasks): mean score and Cost per task across Official OpenClaw, CUA Driver, and HCU. (c) MacAgentBench UI-dependent subset (macOS, 28 tasks) and (d) Windows Agent Arena (Windows, 111 tasks): task performance and resource reductions relative to CUA Driver.
Metric
CUA Driver
Evaluated HCU
Released HCU
vs. Evaluated
vs. CUA Driver
Score (%)
62.47
65.77
70.13
+4.36 pp
+7.66 pp
Full-score tasks (%)
60.00
62.41
66.67
+4.26 pp
+6.67 pp
Steps
40.58
28.45
24.92
− 12.4%
− 38.6%
Tool calls
33.67
24.94
21.63
− 13.3%
− 35.8%
Desktop calls
12.02
9.83
13.10
+33.2%
+9.0%
Shell commands
21.66
15.11
8.52
− 43.6%
− 60.7%
Appendix
Table 4: CUA Driver, evaluated HCU, and released HCU on OSWorld 1.0 with GPT-5.4 (xhigh) in Codex, 360 tasks. CUA Driver and Evaluated HCU: mean of three runs. Values are per task unless noted; tool calls count desktop calls (AX and GUI) and shell commands (programmatic channel).
Metric
Official OpenClaw
HCU
CUA Driver
Mean score (%)
43.84
53.25
46.37
Tasks with score ≥0.8
23/114
24/114
12/114
Total tool calls
9,458
9,465
11,494
Tool calls
82.96
83.03
100.82
Input tokens
3,537,196
4,478,251
8,712,900
Output tokens
32,677
26,821
31,671
Appendix
Table 5: Three-arm comparison on all 114 WeaveBench tasks with GPT-5.4 (medium). Values are per task unless noted.
Metric
CUA Driver
HCU
Change
Completed tasks
24/28 (85.7%)
25/28 (89.3%)
+3.6 pp
Steps
52.21
39.61
− 24.1%
Tool calls
44.54
35.64
− 20.0%
Time, mean (s)
876.0
544.5
− 37.8%
Time, median (s)
659.5
419.3
− 36.4%
Input tokens
3,637,053
1,344,550
− 63.0%
Appendix
Table 6: HCU and CUA Driver on the 28 UI-dependent macOS tasks of MacAgentBench with GPT-5.4 (xhigh). Values are per task unless noted.
Metric
CUA Driver
HCU
Change
Score (%)
71.89 (79.80/111)
80.86 (89.75/111)
+8.97 pp
Full / partial / zero tasks
78 / 2 / 31
88 / 2 / 21
+10 full
Steps, mean (median)
24.45 (20.5)
17.35 (14.0)
− 29.0%
Tool calls, mean (median)
23.81 (20.0)
16.43 (13.0)
− 31.0%
Time, mean (s)
344.3
220.3
− 36.0%
Time, median (s)
199.5
171.8
− 13.9%
Appendix
Table 7: HCU and CUA Driver on 111 Windows Agent Arena tasks with GPT-5.4 in Codex. Values are per task unless noted.
Configuration
Direct code/CLI
AX
GUI
Skill
HCU
✓
✓
✓
✓
HCU w/o GUI
✓
✓
–
✓
HCU w/o AX
✓
–
✓
✓
HCU w/o skill
✓
✓
✓
–
Appendix
Table 8: Direct tool access in the channel and skill ablations. A check mark means that the configuration exposes that component directly.
Metric
CUA Driver
HCU
Partial (%)
68.82
72.37
Binary (%)
31.5
32.4
Steps
94
85
Tool calls
111.7
78.4
Input tokens / task (M)
6.9
6.9
Output tokens / task (k)
25.8
25.4
Appendix
Table 9: HCU versus CUA Driver with GPT-6 Astra in Codex, OSWorld 2.0 full set (0808). Code Mode; 500-step limit.
Configuration
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Mean ± SD
HCU
66.16
65.65
64.95
65.59 ± 0.61
HCU w/o GUI
65.64
64.70
67.92
66.08 ± 1.66
HCU w/o AX
63.53
62.30
62.55
62.79 ± 0.65
HCU w/o skill
62.84
65.33
63.83
64.00 ± 1.25
CUA Driver
63.29
61.09
62.51
62.30 ± 1.12
Appendix
Table 10: Per-run Score (%); mean ± sample standard deviation across three runs.
Metric (numerator / denominator)
HCU w/o skill
HCU
Schema rejection / calls
2460/14160
147/10783
Task-runs with schema rejection
601/1083
132/1083
Task-runs with consecutive schema failures
484/1083
4/1083
All AX/GUI errors / calls
2686/14160
638/10783
Stale-category errors / calls
107/14160
88/10783
Execution or assertion errors / calls
66/14160
380/10783
Appendix
Table 11: Skill diagnostics pooled across three runs per configuration (2,166 traces; 361 tasks). Cells report event or task-run counts.
Figure 7: Skill effects across 2,166 OSWorld 1.0 traces (GPT-5.4). (a) Collapse of invocation errors, schema-error chains, and repeated same-tool failures. (b) Adoption of composable AX features (default diff feedback, multi-action batches, find , and in-call checks).
Model
GPT-style
Claude-style
Difference (pp)
Claude Opus 5.5
71.70
72.51
+0.82
GPT-5.4
65.59
63.56
-2.03
Appendix
Table 12: GUI action-space replacement within HCU: Score (%); differences are Claude-style minus GPT-style.
Figure 8: HCU–CUA Driver Score differences by application; tasks are averaged over runs before pairing. n : paired tasks; asterisk: Claude Opus 5.5’s 14-task Thunderbird comparison.
Figure 9: Recorded GIMP interaction, HCU (GPT-5.4), OSWorld 1.0. A screenshot reveals the value omitted by AX; execution resumes through the earlier OK reference.
Figure 10: Steps decomposition by desktop-tool use across models. (a) Mean Steps per task and equivalent task counts Ng on tasks where both interfaces use desktop tools. (b) Additive contributions Δg to the overall Steps difference (negative favors HCU) and net per-task Steps.
Figure 11: Termination, step distributions, and limit-grouped Score gains across models (Appendix D.1 ). (a) Termination shares; counts denote termination at the 100-step limit. (b) Within-group cumulative Steps distributions; n : HCU / CUA Driver tasks. (c) Additive Score-gain contributions (pp) grouped by whether CUA Driver reaches the 100-step limit, with mean task counts beneath each bar.
Figure 12: Post-error behavior across models. (a) Next-call outcome shares over desktop-tool error events, with total error counts n on the right. (b) Destination channel shares conditional on HCU switching channels.
Operation
Main request fields
Returned evidence and use
AX apps
No target
List top-level windows as wN with title, application, and focus.
AX observe
app or window_ref ; scope , root
Return a compact window tree with state and rN references for subsequent calls.
AX find
app or window_ref , query , scope ; or cursor
Retrieve matching targets and local context without reading an entire window tree.
AX act
Up to 64 ordered actions and wait steps; observe
Execute steps in order, stop at the first failed step, and report per-target effects, window changes, and post-action observation.
GUI observation
actions with a single screenshot or zoom
Return the full-desktop frame, binding its window layout for subsequent coordinate checks, or an enlarged region of that frame.
GUI input
Up to 64 ordered actions : pointer, drag, scroll, text, keys, or wait
Execute mouse and keyboard input against the frame-bound layout and return the final screenshot.
Appendix
Table 13: Desktop operations and main request fields.
Figure 13: HCU interface and MCP server boundaries. HCU unifies programmatic, semantic, and visual channels; the HCU MCP server provides the AX and GUI tools over a shared Go service, while programmatic tools live in the agent and the evaluation runner remains external. Platform backends: Figure 19 .
Figure 14: Same-capture AX excerpts (‘o200k_base‘). Counts cover complete view bodies, excluding headers and images; projection retains all issued references.
Figure 16: Recorded AX interaction with GPT-5.6 Sol on OSWorld 2.0. The search batch returns the entered value, and a subsequent find supplies the next target.
Figure 17: Cross-channel state and action guards. GUI mutation invalidates working observations while retaining identities and eligible diff snapshots. The GUI guard checks window layout before coordinate input, and uncertain preparation stops the batch.
Figure 18: Recorded Writer layout-guard interaction, HCU (GPT-5.4), OSWorld 1.0. The GUI batch is rejected before input and returns a fresh screenshot; the first two crops share region and scale. Retrying with revised pixel coordinates dispatches seven actions.
Figure 19: Shared HCU MCP server and native backends. Rows show capabilities, not a fixed workflow; AX can also return screenshots, and its wait steps are optional. Dashed branches are alternative backends, one selected per build, while the agent’s programmatic tools remain in the harness.
Operation
GPT-style ( type field)
Claude-style ( action field)
Observe
screenshot ; zoom of a frame region
screenshot , zoom , cursor_position
Click
click with button and modifier keys ; double_click
Computer-use agents have advanced on benchmarks like OSWorld and AndroidWorld, but still act mostly through the GUI, often producing inefficient trajectories. Real-world computer work is hybrid, combining visual-state inspection with precise, high-throughput command-line operations, so capable agents must coordinate both modalities over shared application state. Yet scalable hybrid environments remain scarce because supporting both GUI and CLI over real applications typically requires substantial manual engineering for each application. Existing agents also struggle to use the two interfaces complementarily: CLI-native agents lack visual perception for tasks involving interface state or layout, while GUI-native agents are inefficient for operations better executed through commands. We introduce CUA-Universe, a scalable environment-to-data pipeline that turns real desktop software into hybrid GUI+CLI environments. App-Forge adapts applications into reproducible VMs and command-line surfaces it discovers, wraps, or generates, scaling to 16 applications; Task-Weave synthesizes diverse hybrid tasks of controllable difficulty from reusable operations over seed files; and Path-Steer steers rollouts along efficient hybrid paths and harvests verified trajectories for post-training. Training on this data shifts behavior from inefficient GUI interaction and brittle CLI scripting toward effective GUI+CLI orchestration. Our 9B model improves both success and efficiency on CUA-Verse (Score +39.3 pts; -37% steps, -60% tokens), OSWorld (SR +16.8 pts; -57% steps, -44% tokens), and OSWorld-MCP (Score +7.84 pts; -27% steps, -30% tokens). CUA-Universe provides a scalable path toward more capable and efficient computer-use agents.
Haoting Shi, Wenhao Wang, Weicheng Fang +6
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Zhejiang University
Computer use agents (CUAs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in completing digital tasks. However, existing CUAs either rely solely on graphical user interface (GUI) interactions, which are often inefficient and error prone, or augment GUI interactions with application specific APIs or tools, which require substantial engineering effort and are difficult to scale across applications. We argue that the next generation of CUAs should combine GUI interactions with the command line interface (CLI), leveraging the generality of the GUI and the efficiency of shell commands. A critical challenge, however, is that current models do not know when or how to use the CLI during task execution. To address this challenge, we develop a data construction pipeline that produces three types of trajectories: GUI only, CLI only, and interleaved GUI and CLI trajectories. This pipeline results in HybridCUA-8K, containing 5K hybrid trajectories and 3K verified RLVR tasks. Building on these data, we propose a training framework with two stages: supervised fine tuning on the constructed trajectories, followed by reinforcement learning with our CLI aware rewards that encourages agents to use the CLI selectively and reliably. Experiments show that HybridCUA-9B achieves 53.6% accuracy on OSWorld, improving over the base model by 14.8 percentage points, and improves performance on WindowsAgentArena by 4.0 percentage points. These results demonstrate the effectiveness and cross platform generalizability of the hybrid GUI and CLI paradigm for computer use agents.
Tongbo Chen, Junbo Niu, Zhengxi Lu +8
Zhejiang University · Peking University · Tsinghua University
Hybrid computer-use agents can act through screenshots or call text tools. We find that having a tool available does not settle which way the effect goes. Under one identical GUI-MCP harness on the OSWorld-MCP benchmark (309 tasks), the same MCP tools improve a reasoning model by +4.0pp and degrade a non-reasoning model by -5.9pp (5 runs each, both beyond 2 SE). What separates the two is tool-decision behavior. The non-reasoning policy ignores, misnames, or falsely terminates around tools. The reasoning model avoids these failures, yet still calls a tool on only 55/309 tasks, 23.9% of the tool-reachable ones. We call this shortfall the adoption gap. Both levels of the problem share one cause: the model already has a cheaper route and is never trained to take it. Multi-turn RL probes that cause. At the action level, a dense tool bonus raises spreadsheet adoption 0.03 -> 0.33 and carries into greedy decoding, but held-out accuracy does not follow. Behavior is steerable; competence is not. The bottleneck lies in tool-call semantics. At the context level, a successful tool call often makes the next screenshot redundant. Dropping it and halving image history cuts input tokens by about a third, at a small accuracy cost. Retraining under the same observation rule removes that cost. The compressed agent then reaches 37.8% against 33.0% for the uncompressed operating point, at 53% of the input cost, and closes the rich-lean gap on a pre-registered degraded subset to zero. Tools help when the model chooses and integrates them, and current hybrid agents leave many such choices unused. Code and checkpoints: https://github.com/redai-infra/hybrid-routing-agent
Siqi Fan, Minghao Li, Xiaoqian Ma +6
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China · AI Platform, Xiaohongshu Inc. · Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China +1