From Human-Centric to Agentic Code Review: The Impact of Different Generations of Generative AI Technology on Review Quality

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.13196v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 18:48:20 GMT
• Title: From Human-Centric to Agentic Code Review: The Impact of Different Generations of Generative AI Technology on Review Quality
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 3.7086626614863984
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Code review helps maintain software quality before code integration, but it also imposes a substantial workload on human reviewers. As generative artificial intelligence becomes part of software development, code review is shifting from a primarily human review process toward AI-supported review processes in which large language model (LLM) reviewers and AI agent reviewers participate alongside human reviewers. However, we still lack empirical evidence on how this transition affects review efficiency and review quality. In this paper, we study 1.02 million reviewed pull requests from 207 GitHub projects that transition across three code review eras: human-centric review, LLM-assisted review, and agentic code review. We identify three AI reviewer adoption practices: Gradual AI Adoption, Rapid LLM Adoption, and Rapid AI Agent Adoption. We further model pull request review discussions as reviewer interaction sequences to characterize how human, LLM, and AI agent reviewers collaborate during the review process. Our results show that agent-involved collaboration patterns, especially reviews initiated by AI agents or involving multiple AI agents, are associated with faster review decisions under Gradual AI Adoption and Rapid AI Agent Adoption. However, these efficiency gains do not translate into better review quality. We also find that review activity and pull request type remain important across eras, while human-AI collaboration patterns become the strongest explanatory factor for review efficiency once LLM and AI agent reviewers participate. These findings provide empirical guidance for designing AI-supported code review processes that improve efficiency without weakening review quality.

Related papers

• From Passive Generation to Investigation: A Proactive Scientific Peer Review Agent [52.42081442204093]
  We argue that a key limitation is the lack of flexibility to proactively investigate suspicious parts of a paper.<n>We propose ProReviewer, a scientific peer review agent that proactively reviews a paper guided by a maintained, structured review log.<n> Experiments show that ProReviewer with an 8B backbone, trained by supervised fine-tuning and optimized by reinforcement learning, achieves the highest average score across five quality dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T13:38:23Z)
• Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review [2.2807488730605296]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T17:04:21Z)
• Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation [51.53099943385505]
  This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews.<n>We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity.<n>We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T22:41:04Z)
• These Aren't the Reviews You're Looking For How Humans Review AI-Generated Pull Requests [0.0]
  We analyze code review interactions for AI-generated pull requests (PRs) on GitHub using the AIDev dataset.<n>We find that most AI-generated PRs receive no review and, when reviewed, are largely dominated by AI agents rather than humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T06:32:50Z)
• 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)
• How AI Coding Agents Communicate: A Study of Pull Request Description Characteristics and Human Review Responses [6.061536429904841]
  We conduct an empirical analysis of pull requests created by five AI coding agents using the AIDev dataset.<n>We find that AI coding agents exhibit distinct PR description styles, which are associated with differences in reviewer engagement, response time, and merge outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T05:06:31Z)
• What happens when reviewers receive AI feedback in their reviews? [9.57486570505445]
  Advocates see AI's potential to reduce reviewer burden and improve quality, while critics warn of risks to fairness, accountability, and trust.<n>At ICLR 2025, an official AI feedback tool was deployed to provide reviewers with post-review suggestions.<n>This work contributes the first empirical evidence of such an AI tool in a live review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T15:22:33Z)
• Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation [87.47155146067962]
  We provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of tasks.<n>We conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks.<n>Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T22:22:28Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.