aiqbench analysis
This is an early-stage empirical study. It finds that giving a Codex-based coding agent explicit, machine-readable artifact roles (editable, inspect-only, required, protected) improved edit selection and patch acceptance on 40 enterprise maintenance tasks. The authors are careful to call it a pilot with small samples, not evidence of general effectiveness. For readers, the useful takeaway is that scoping what an agent may touch can matter as much as showing it what is relevant, though replication on larger and more varied codebases is needed.
Toward Bounding Coding-Agent Autonomy in Software Maintenance: A Pilot Study of Boundary Contracts
arXiv:2611.01265v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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?
Abstract: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?
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2611.01265 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2611.01265v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.01265 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 317 words