Every time execution models change, security frameworks need to change with them. Agents force the next shift.
The Unattended Laptop Problem
No developer would leave their laptop unattended and unlocked. The risk is obvious. A developer laptop has root-level access to production systems, repositories, databases, credentials, and APIs. If someone sat down and started using it, they could review pull requests, modify files, commit code, and access anything the developer can access.
Yet this is how many teams are deploying agents today. Autonomous systems are given credentials, tools, and live access to sensitive environments with minimal structure. Work executes in parallel and continuously, at a pace no human could follow. Code is generated faster than developers can realistically review, and they cannot monitor everything operating on their behalf.
Once execution is parallel and continuous, the potential for mistakes or cascading failures scales quickly. Teams will continue to adopt agents because the gains are real. What remains unresolved is how to make this model safe enough to operate without requiring manual approval for every action. Manual approval slows execution back down to human speed and eliminates the value of agents entirely. And consent fatigue is real.
Why AI Agents Break Existing Governance
Traditional security controls were designed around a human operator. A person sits at the keyboard, initiates actions deliberately, and operates within organizational and social constraints. Reviews worked because there was time between intent and execution. Perimeter security protected the network boundary, while automated systems operated within narrow execution limits.
But traditional security assumes something deeper: that a human is operating the machine. Firewalls trust the laptop because an employee is using it. VPNs trust the connection because an engineer authenticated. Secrets managers grant access because a person requested it. The model depends on someone who can be held accountable and who operates at human speed.
Agents break this assumption. They act directly, reading repositories, calling APIs, modifying files, using credentials. They have root-level privileges and execute actions at machine speed.
Legacy controls were never intended for this. The default response has been more visibility and approvals, adding alerts, prompts, and confirmations for every action. This does not scale and generates “consent fatigue”, annoying developers and undermining the very security it seeks to enforce. When agents execute hundreds of actions in parallel, humans cannot review them meaningfully. Warnings become noise.
AI Governance and the Execution Layer: The Three Cs Framework
Each major shift in computing has moved security closer to execution. Agents follow the same trajectory. If agents execute, security must operate at the agentic execution layer.
That shift maps governance to three structural requirements: the 3Cs.
Contain: Bound the Blast Radius
Every execution model relies on isolation. Processes required memory protection. Virtual machines required hypervisors. Containers required namespaces. Agents require an equivalent boundary. Containment limits failure so mistakes made by an agent don’t have permanent consequences for your data, workflows, and business. Unlocking full agent autonomy requires the confidence that experimentation won’t be reckless. . Without it, autonomous execution fails.
Curate: Define the Agent’s Environment
What an agent can do is determined by what exists in its environment. The tools it can invoke, the code it can see, the credentials it can use, the context it operates within. All of this shapes execution before the agent acts.
Curation isn’t approval. It is construction. You are not reviewing what the agent wants to do. You are defining the world it operates in. Agents do not reason about your entire system. They act within the environment they are given. If that environment is deliberate, execution becomes predictable. If it is not, you have autonomy without structure, which is just risk.
Control: Enforce Boundaries in Real Time
Governance that exists only on paper has no effect on autonomous systems. Rules must apply as actions occur. File access, network calls, tool invocation, and credential use require runtime enforcement. This is where alert-based security breaks down. Logging and warnings explain what happened or ask permission after execution is already underway.
Control determines what can happen, when, where, and who has the privilege to make it happen. Properly executed control does not remove autonomy. It defines its limits and removes the need for humans to approve every action under pressure. If this sounds like a policy engine, you aren’t wrong. But this must be dynamic and adaptable, able to keep pace with an agentic workforce.
Putting the 3Cs Into Practice
The three Cs reinforce one another. Containment limits the cost of failure. Curation narrows what agents can attempt and makes them more useful to developers by applying semantic knowledge to craft tools and context to suit the specific environment and task. Control at the runtime layer replaces reactive approval with structural enforcement.
In practice, this work falls to platform teams. It means standardized execution environments with isolation by default, curated tool and credential surfaces aligned to specific use cases, and policy enforcement that operates before actions complete rather than notifying humans afterward. Teams that build with these principles can use agents effectively without burning out developers or drowning them in alerts. Teams that do not will discover that human attention is not a scalable control plane.
