c-CRAB benchmark shows state-of-the-art code review agents solve only around 40% of tasks derived from human reviews, suggesting potential for human-AI collaboration.
Benchmarking and studying the llm-based code review
3 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Automated Code Review (ACR) is crucial for software quality, yet existing benchmarks often fail to reflect real-world complexities, hindering the evaluation of modern Large Language Models (LLMs). Current benchmarks frequently focus on fine-grained code units, lack complete project context, and use inadequate evaluation metrics. To address these limitations, we introduce SWRBench , a new benchmark comprising 1000 manually verified Pull Requests (PRs) from GitHub, offering PR-centric review with full project context. SWRBench employs an objective LLM-based evaluation method that aligns strongly with human judgment (~90 agreement) by verifying if issues from a structured ground truth are covered in generated reviews. Our systematic evaluation of mainstream ACR tools and LLMs on SWRBench reveals that current systems underperform, and ACR tools are more adept at detecting functional errors. Subsequently, we propose and validate a simple multi-review aggregation strategy that significantly boosts ACR performance, increasing F1 scores by up to 43.67%. Our contributions include the SWRBench benchmark, its objective evaluation method, a comprehensive study of current ACR capabilities, and an effective enhancement approach, offering valuable insights for advancing ACR research.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.SE 3years
2026 3verdicts
UNVERDICTED 3roles
background 1polarities
background 1representative citing papers
Reviewer bots' higher comment volume on AI agent PRs is associated with slower resolutions and poorer average feedback quality, while feedback quality itself has no association with PR outcomes.
Proposes a five-stage agentic AI framework for code review with human quality gates to maintain context, accountability, and team understanding.
citing papers explorer
-
Code Review Agent Benchmark
c-CRAB benchmark shows state-of-the-art code review agents solve only around 40% of tasks derived from human reviews, suggesting potential for human-AI collaboration.
-
On the Footprints of Reviewer Bots Feedback on Agentic Pull Requests in OSS GitHub Repositories
Reviewer bots' higher comment volume on AI agent PRs is associated with slower resolutions and poorer average feedback quality, while feedback quality itself has no association with PR outcomes.
-
Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review
Proposes a five-stage agentic AI framework for code review with human quality gates to maintain context, accountability, and team understanding.