Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17548v1
• Date: Sun, 17 May 2026 17:04:21 GMT
• Title: Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review
• Abstract summary: We present a vision for an AI-powered code review workflow combining specialized agents with human-controlled quality.<n>We identify major open challenges for responsible adoption, including reliability, bias, privacy, automation bias, transparency, and evaluation.
• Score: 2.2807488730605296
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Code review has evolved for decades, from informal peer checking to today's pull request (PR) workflows, yet it remains a largely manual, uneven, and cognitively demanding process. The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) coding assistants has intensified this challenge: while these tools increase code production velocity, they also expand the volume of code requiring review, turning code review into a growing bottleneck. Current AI support remains fragmented, with tools focusing on isolated tasks such as reviewer recommendation, PR description generation, or comment suggestion rather than the end-to-end PR review workflow. In this paper, we review the historical evolution of code review practices and examine the shift driven by large language models (LLMs) and agentic AI systems. We then present a vision for an AI-powered code review workflow combining specialized agents with human-controlled quality gates. Our framework spans five stages: PR Creation, PR Augmentation, Reviewer Selection, AI-Assisted Code Review, and PR Retrospective, with humans retained at key decision points to preserve judgment, accountability, and team-level understanding. We identify major open challenges for responsible adoption, including reliability, bias, privacy, automation bias, transparency, and evaluation, and offer a research agenda for more effective human-AI collaboration in software engineering.

Related papers

• Code Review is a Conversation: Toward Conversational AI Review Assistants [7.335667281862373]
  We argue for conversational AI review assistants that participate in code review as interactive partners rather than static comment generators.<n>Such assistants should identify when conversation is needed, ask grounded questions, respond to developer explanations, summarize unresolved issues, help capture rationale, and know when to abstain or escalate to human reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-24T08:44:05Z)
• From Human-Centric to Agentic Code Review: The Impact of Different Generations of Generative AI Technology on Review Quality [3.7086626614863984]
  We study 1.02 million reviewed pull requests from 207 GitHub projects that transition across three code review eras.<n>Agent-involved collaboration patterns are associated with faster review decisions under Gradual AI Adoption and Rapid AI Agent Adoption.<n>These findings provide empirical guidance for designing AI-supported code review processes that improve efficiency without weakening review quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-14T18:48:20Z)
• SWE-Review: Closing the Loop on Issue Resolution with Agentic Code Review [47.72392142544407]
  Coding agents increasingly generate pull requests (PRs) for real-world software issues.<n>One-shot PR generation remains open-loop: the PR is proposed without systematic review, diagnosis, or revision.<n>We introduce textbfSWE-Review, a framework for closing this loop with agentic code review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-07T09:37:45Z)
• Code as Agent Harness [107.31925305395957]
  In emerging agentic systems, code is no longer only a target output.<n>Code increasingly serves as an operational substrate for agent reasoning, acting, environment modeling, and execution-based verification.<n>This survey provides a unified roadmap toward executable, verifiable, and stateful AI agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T17:59:03Z)
• Human-AI Synergy in Agentic Code Review [3.7086626614863984]
  We compare the feedback differences provided by human reviewers and AI agents.<n>Human reviewers exchange 11.8% more rounds when reviewing AI-generated code than human-written code.<n>Over half of unadopted suggestions from AI agents are either incorrect or addressed through alternative fixes by developers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T20:56:18Z)
• CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection [60.52240468810558]
  We introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews.<n>We also develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:03:11Z)
• DeputyDev -- AI Powered Developer Assistant: Breaking the Code Review Logjam through Contextual AI to Boost Developer Productivity [38.585498338645856]
  This study investigates the implementation and efficacy of DeputyDev.<n>DeputyDev is an AI-powered code review assistant developed to address inefficiencies in the software development process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-13T10:09:45Z)
• Code Review as Decision-Making -- Building a Cognitive Model from the Questions Asked During Code Review [2.8299846354183953]
  We build a cognitive model of code review bottom up through thematic, statistical, temporal, and sequential analysis of the transcribed material.<n>The model shows how developers move through two phases during the code review; first an orientation phase to establish context and rationale, then an analytical phase to understand, assess, and plan the rest of the review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-13T14:04:16Z)
• Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer Workflows [60.04362496037186]
  We present the first controlled study of developer interactions with coding agents.<n>We evaluate two leading copilot and agentic coding assistants.<n>Our results show agents can assist developers in ways that surpass copilots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T20:12:54Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• CodeAgent: Autonomous Communicative Agents for Code Review [12.163258651539236]
  This work introduces tool, a novel multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) system for code review automation. CodeAgent incorporates a supervisory agent, QA-Checker, to ensure that all the agents' contributions address the initial review question. Results demonstrate CodeAgent's effectiveness, contributing to a new state-of-the-art in code review automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T14:43:14Z)
• Generation Probabilities Are Not Enough: Uncertainty Highlighting in AI Code Completions [54.55334589363247]
  We study whether conveying information about uncertainty enables programmers to more quickly and accurately produce code. We find that highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited leads to faster task completion and more targeted edits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T18:43:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.