Agentic image editors decompose complex requests into steps, but when a step fails, they mostly retry with the same narrow set of tools and a judge that scores each output by eye directly. We argue that such agents are bounded by two spaces: the action space of what the agent can do, and the observation space of what its judge can see. On our expert-annotated benchmark, a general-purpose editor yields no usable result in over 40% of the cases, and no judge is reliable across edit types. We present EditAgent, which expands both spaces. It routes each step to general editors and specialized methods, and attaches to each candidate a verification record. With these records, off-the-shelf VLM judges outperform finetuned reward models. Candidates are generated in parallel and judged in one listwise call: experts prefer this to sequential refinement in 78.5% of decided comparisons, at no more than half the judge calls. EditAgent improves two open-weight editors on three benchmarks and serves as a data engine for training stronger editors.
Omnimodal large language models (Omni-LLMs) are increasingly expected to assist users while observing continuous audiovisual streams. However, existing evaluations provide limited insight into how reliably these models connect stream evidence and user needs to timely, sustained interventions. We introduce \textbf{Omni-InteractScope}, a benchmark of 1,479 human-annotated, cross-reviewed interactions with 1,790 temporal targets across eight task groups. It links input modalities, event triggers, intervention types, and user needs, covering event-timed tool invocation and query-free assistance alongside notifications, warnings, state tracking, and continuous responses. Our experimental results on the proposed benchmark reveal three critical limitations of current Omni-LLMs: (1) \textbf{Timely tool invocation remains unreliable}: all 12 evaluated models produce an on-time first response for at most 40\% of tool-invocation targets, and joint timing-and-tool accuracy reaches at most 32.0\%. (2) \textbf{Query-free reminders remain poorly covered}: all evaluated models achieve lower timely reference-target recall on query-free reminders than on explicit questions, measured on their respective target sets. Reminder recall never exceeds 23.0\%. (3) \textbf{End-to-end guidance coverage remains limited}: nine models cover none of the 26 guidance sequences in full, and the remaining three cover only one to three sequences each. Targeted controls further show that tool-invocation scores alone do not establish event grounding and that reminder coverage depends on response history and frequency. These findings motivate developing and evaluating streaming assistants for timely action, initiative under general user needs, and coverage of entire response sequences.