Absolutely agree. Agent identity is an important missing layer in the autonomy discussion.
The key distinction is moving from “the user authorized this” to “this specific agent, with this specific scope, performed this action.” That gives you much stronger provenance, auditability, and accountability.
I also like the checkpoint model here because identity + scoped authority makes checkpoints more than just approval gates—they become enforceable policy boundaries. As agents become more autonomous, that combination could be critical for making autonomy trustworthy rather than simply convenient.
The autonomy slider is a great way to think about it. One dimension that makes the reliability problem harder is agent identity. Right now most agents run under the users own API keys or session tokens, so every action the agent takes is indistinguishable from one the user took directly. That makes audit trails impossible and liability hard to assign. Giving an agent its own keypair that signs its actions changes this: you get a clear chain of provenance for every decision, and you can scope the agents authority to exactly what it needs. For the act with checkpoints pattern, that means the checkpoint can verify the agents action against its authorized scope before it commits. Agent identity infrastructure is still early but it is one of the missing pieces that makes the autonomy conversation less risky.