Boundary Contracts：给编码智能体划定可编辑边界的试点研究
Toward Bounding Coding-Agent Autonomy in Software Maintenance: A Pilot Study of Boundary Contracts
给 Codex 智能体加一份边界契约，40 个维护任务里可接受补丁从 9 个涨到 18 个，做法很简单，做智能体的可以看看思路。
论文提出 Boundary Contracts，一种机器可读的抽象层，在修改仓库前明确工件的四种角色：可编辑、只读、必需、受保护。在来自真实企业仓库的 40 个维护任务上，同一个基于 Codex 的编码智能体加入边界信息后，宏编辑选择 F1 从 0.440 提升到 0.682，必需行为覆盖率从 0.429 提升到 0.673，严格可接受补丁数从 9/40 提升到 18/40。对 21 个两个条件都改动了相同文件的任务分析显示，收益并非只来自文件定位改善。作者强调这只是试点，尚未证明其普适有效性。
Toward Bounding Coding-Agent Autonomy in Software Maintenance: A Pilot Study of Boundary Contracts
As coding agents gain greater autonomy to modify software repositories, relevant context alone does not define their operational authority. An artifact may be relevant to a maintenance task while being inappropriate to edit; conversely, another artifact may be required even when it is not explicitly mentioned in the request. We explore Boundary Contracts, a machine-readable abstraction that makes task-specific artifact roles (editable, inspect-only, required, and protected) explicit before repository modification begins. We conduct a pilot study on 40 maintenance tasks from a real enterprise repository, comparing the same Codex-based coding agent with and without Boundary Contract information. The boundary-informed condition improves macro edit-selection F1 from 0.440 to 0.682, required-behavior coverage from 0.429 to 0.673, and the number of strictly acceptable patches from 9 of 40 to 18 of 40. To probe whether these gains are explained only by improved file localization, we additionally analyze 21 tasks in which both conditions modify at least one identical file. Differences remain in edit selectivity and patch outcomes, providing initial evidence that explicit artifact roles may influence maintenance behavior beyond localization alone. This pilot does not establish the general effectiveness of Boundary Contracts. Rather, it provides initial evidence for a broader research question: how should the operational boundaries of coding agents be generated, validated, revised, and ultimately enforced as repository-level maintenance becomes increasingly autonomous?
