Using Agentic AI for contextualized and multifaceted code review at Ericsson

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.15877v1
• Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 17:05:38 GMT
• Title: Using Agentic AI for contextualized and multifaceted code review at Ericsson
• Abstract summary: We propose a multi-agent-based solution that provides multifaceted assessments of code changes.<n>Our solution combines specialized agent skills with context-specific knowledge to identify antipatterns in code changes.<n>Our solution achieves 96% accuracy in correctly identifying issues in the investigated code commits.
• Score: 2.718493331100771
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Context: Conducting effective code reviews is increasingly challenging due to the growing complexity of software systems and the accelerated code generation by AI coding agents. LLM-based approaches for code reviews have shown promising results in identifying defects and improving code quality. However, existing approaches rarely consider project-specific contextualized knowledge, and few have been evaluated in industrial settings. Objective: In this study, we propose a multi-agent-based solution that provides multifaceted assessments of code changes. Method: Following the Design Science Research Process, we developed and evaluated our solution in an industrial setting. Our solution combines specialized agent skills with context-specific knowledge to identify antipatterns in code changes across four dimensions: readability, maintainability, reliability, and performance. Using our solution, we generated reviews for several code commits and identified more than 200 issues. These issues were then manually validated by the developers of the case company for their correctness and importance. Results: The evaluation results show that our solution achieves 96% accuracy in correctly identifying issues in the investigated code commits. Furthermore, around 69% of the correctly identified issues were rated as important, with approximately 33% rated as severe issues that must be fixed and 36% as important issues that should be fixed. Qualitative feedback from developers corroborates these findings and highlights the usefulness of the generated reviews. Conclusion: Our findings provide empirical evidence from an industrial evaluation that combining specialized agent skills with context-specific knowledge yields accurate, practically useful code reviews.

Related papers

• How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding [5.271725890500162]
  We develop a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements.<n>Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement.<n>Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T05:34:47Z)
• BeyondSWE: Can Current Code Agent Survive Beyond Single-Repo Bug Fixing? [61.247730037229815]
  We introduce BeyondSWE, a comprehensive benchmark that broadens existing evaluations along two axes - resolution scope and knowledge scope.<n>To investigate the role of external knowledge, we develop SearchSWE, a framework that integrates deep search with coding abilities.<n>This work offers both a realistic, challenging evaluation benchmark and a flexible framework to advance research toward more capable code agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T17:52:01Z)
• 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 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)
• CoQuIR: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Code Quality-Aware Information Retrieval [44.39462689088926]
  CoQuIR is the first large-scale, multilingual benchmark designed to evaluate quality-aware code retrieval.<n>CoQuIR provides fine-grained quality annotations for 42,725 queries and 134,907 code snippets in 11 programming languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-31T13:00:17Z)
• CodeCriticBench: A Holistic Code Critique Benchmark for Large Language Models [97.18215355266143]
  We introduce a holistic code critique benchmark for Large Language Models (LLMs) called CodeCriticBench.<n>Specifically, our CodeCriticBench includes two mainstream code tasks (i.e., code generation and code QA) with different difficulties.<n>Besides, the evaluation protocols include basic critique evaluation and advanced critique evaluation for different characteristics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-23T15:36:43Z)
• Understanding Code Understandability Improvements in Code Reviews [79.16476505761582]
  We analyzed 2,401 code review comments from Java open-source projects on GitHub. 83.9% of suggestions for improvement were accepted and integrated, with fewer than 1% later reverted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T12:21:23Z)
• Codev-Bench: How Do LLMs Understand Developer-Centric Code Completion? [60.84912551069379]
  We present the Code-Development Benchmark (Codev-Bench), a fine-grained, real-world, repository-level, and developer-centric evaluation framework. Codev-Agent is an agent-based system that automates repository crawling, constructs execution environments, extracts dynamic calling chains from existing unit tests, and generates new test samples to avoid data leakage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T09:11:10Z)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for Efficient Failure Analysis in Game Development [47.618236610219554]
  This paper proposes a new approach to automatically identify which change in the code caused a test to fail. The method leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to associate error messages with the corresponding code changes causing the failure. Our approach reaches an accuracy of 71% in our newly created dataset, which comprises issues reported by developers at EA over a period of one year.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T09:21:50Z)
• Toward Effective Secure Code Reviews: An Empirical Study of Security-Related Coding Weaknesses [14.134803943492345]
  We conducted an empirical case study in two large open-source projects, OpenSSL and PHP. Based on 135,560 code review comments, we found that reviewers raised security concerns in 35 out of 40 coding weakness categories. Some coding weaknesses related to past vulnerabilities, such as memory errors and resource management, were discussed less often than the vulnerabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T00:49:00Z)

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.