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?

翻译：暂无翻译