arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01043 , year=

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in software engineering tasks, especially code repair. However, developers often struggle to interpret model outputs, limiting effective human--AI teaming, where humans and AI work toward a shared objective. Prior work mainly optimizes generated code, giving less attention to natural-language feedback that supports comprehension and iterative improvement. We present \textsc{DPO-f+}, a framework that aligns code-repair feedback with the needs of different developer groups, including novices and proficient developers. It (1) defines feedback-alignment metrics across seven fixed dimensions with task-specific descriptions; (2) automatically constructs pairwise preference datasets from code-repair tasks; (3) fine-tunes models using Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) augmented with a reward model; and (4) provides an automated protocol for evaluating feedback quality. Empirically, \textsc{DPO-f+} outperforms both the baseline and standard DPO in feedback accuracy and overall alignment. On novice programming tasks, \textsc{DPO-f+} improves Pass@1 by 5.71 percentage points (pp) over the baseline and 3.30 pp over DPO. On \textsc{SWE-Bench}, it improves issue-resolution rate by 1.67 pp over DPO and 4.67 pp over the baseline. It also improves feedback alignment by both LLM judges and a human study with 200 developers: beginners preferred \textsc{DPO-f+} in 71.5% of comparisons, with overall preference above chance ($p=0.0057$). By better aligning feedback with developer needs, \textsc{DPO-f+} turns LLM assistance from a one-shot output into a collaborative sense-making workflow, enhancing code comprehension and human--AI teaming in software engineering.