The Compaction Cliff in Long-Running AI Agent Memory

A safety rule and an episodic log compete for the same tokens in an AI agent's context. When the budget overflows, both are summarized at the same rate; only the rule needs exact wording to remain enforceable. On 20 production agent configurations, Claude Code's /compact prompt on Sonnet 4.6 preserves 53\% of safety rules after one compaction round and 10\% after five. We name this the Compaction Cliff. We address it with Knowledge Triage, a framework that classifies each line of an agent's knowledge base by type and routes each type through its own retention policy. Three deterministic operators implement this triage across the three context-management operations: TypeCompact rewrites items in place under per-type fidelity, TypeDecompose partitions a topic too large to compact safely, replicating in-scope safety rules across partitions, and TypeRetrieve fetches items from external storage with in-scope rules pinned ahead of relevance. On five public corpora, TypeCompact preserves 2--4$\times$ more safety rules than the strongest single-shot LLM compactor at every ratio, with 96\% recall over five rounds. TypeDecompose reaches 0\% locality violations against 93\% under uniform partitioning. TypeRetrieve reaches 100\% recall@50 against 73\% for the best single-shot LLM retriever. On three downstream behavioral benchmarks, we outperform the production Sonnet compactor on medical compliance (paired McNemar $p < 10^{-8}$ on preservation, $N = 200$), the full-policy and hierarchical baselines on retail task pass rate ($p < 0.01$, $N = 115$), and the hierarchical compaction on the airline domain ($p = 0.024$). We release AgentArtifactCorpus (396{,}934 agent configurations from 54{,}628 public GitHub repositories), the classifier, and the reference implementation.

AI Guardrail Survival under Single-Cycle Agentic Self-Summarization

Long-running agents periodically compact their context, replacing the transcript with a model-generated summary. Recent work shows that dropping a standing safety constraint during compaction drives behavioral violations across many models (Governance Decay; Chen, 2026). We ask a finer question: under a single compaction cycle, how is a safety rule lost, and what does that imply for detection and evaluation? Our central finding is that a presence check is not a safety check: when compaction does not drop a rule outright, it often leaves something that looks like a rule but does not act like one. On behavioral replay, a degraded residue leads the model to perform the prohibited action far more often than an intact welded rule does (all-case gaps of +34 and +57 points under two replay models, both positive), category-level survival behaves like a residue, and even intact rules sometimes fail to fire, so an audit that checks only textual presence gives false assurance. Sharpening this, rule-form items are retained substantially more often than prominence-matched facts, which is exactly why presence-based checking feels adequate even though survival is not protection. Textual loss is regime-dependent (weld-or-drop with a single rule; degraded predicate-loss residues under a tighter budget), and we did not observe the hypothesized textual severing mode. Such loss is silent at runtime and detectable only by comparison with retained external ground truth (such as a constraint registry), which reveals textual absence but not whether a surviving rule still fires. We also document evaluation pitfalls where LLM-judge labels alone would have reversed a conclusion. All results concern a single compaction cycle.

AutoSpec: Safety Rule Evolution for LLM Agents via Inductive Logic Programming

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.