Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Automated Code Review In Practice

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2412.18531 v2 pith:7ZHAAM4H submitted 2024-12-24 cs.SE

Automated Code Review In Practice

classification cs.SE
keywords automatedreviewscodepullreviewcommentspractitionersprojects
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Code review is a widespread practice to improve software quality and transfer knowledge. It is often seen as time-consuming due to the need for manual effort and potential delays. Several AI-assisted tools, such as Qodo, GitHub Copilot, and Coderabbit, provide automated reviews using large language models (LLMs). The effects of such tools in the industry are yet to be examined. This study examines the impact of LLM-based automated code review tools in an industrial setting. The study was conducted within a software development environment that adopted an AI-assisted review tool (based on open-source Qodo PR Agent). Around 238 practitioners across ten projects had access to the tool. We focused on three projects with 4,335 pull requests, 1,568 of which underwent automated reviews. Data collection comprised three sources: (1) a quantitative analysis of pull request data, including comment labels indicating whether developers acted on the automated comments, (2) surveys sent to developers regarding their experience with reviews on individual pull requests, and (3) a broader survey of 22 practitioners capturing their general opinions on automated reviews. 73.8% of automated comments were resolved. However, the average pull request closure duration increased from five hours 52 minutes to eight hours 20 minutes, with varying trends across projects. Most practitioners reported a minor improvement in code quality due to automated reviews. The LLM-based tool proved useful in software development, enhancing bug detection, increasing awareness of code quality, and promoting best practices. However, it also led to longer pull request closure times and introduced drawbacks like faulty reviews, unnecessary corrections, and irrelevant comments.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The Rise of AI Teammates in Software Engineering (SE) 3.0: How Autonomous Coding Agents Are Reshaping Software Engineering

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 8.0

    AIDev is a new open dataset of 456k AI-agent pull requests showing agents submit code faster than humans but with lower acceptance rates and simpler changes.

  2. Why Are Agentic Pull Requests Merged or Rejected? An Empirical Study

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Analysis of 9,799 human-reviewed agentic PRs shows only 35.7% of rejections reflect clear agent failures, with 31.2% due to workflow constraints and 33.1% lacking clear rationale, plus notable interaction differences ...

  3. Does AI Code Review Lead to Code Changes? A Case Study of GitHub Actions

    cs.SE 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Large-scale study of GitHub AI code review actions finds concise comments with code snippets, manual triggers, and hunk-level tools are more likely to produce code changes.

  4. What Motivates Whom? A Survey of Newcomers to OSS and Experienced OSS Practitioners

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Demographics and motivations correlate with OSS project-selection preferences, with distinct patterns for newcomers versus experienced practitioners in a 208-person survey.

  5. From Industry Claims to Empirical Reality: An Empirical Study of Code Review Agents in Pull Requests

    cs.SE 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Code review agents achieve 45.20% merge rate on PRs versus 68.37% for humans, with 60.2% of agent-only closed PRs showing 0-30% signal quality.