Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 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

classification cs.SE
keywords automatedreviewscodepullreviewcommentspractitionersprojects
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
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). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. SWR-Bench: Assessing LLM Performance in Real-World Code Review Comment Generation

    cs.SE 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SWR-Bench is a PR-centric code review benchmark with objective LLM scoring; current ACR tools reach at best 19.4% F1, and multi-review aggregation yields relative F1 gains up to 43.7%.

  2. AI-Assisted Fixes to Code Review Comments at Scale

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fine-tuned Llama models generate exact-match patches for 68% of internal code review comments, and a safety trial shows AI suggestions slow reviewers unless hidden from them.

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

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

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

  4. A Comprehensive Survey of Deep Research: Systems, Methodologies, and Applications

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey of 80+ Deep Research systems that proposes a four-layer taxonomy (foundation models, tool use, planning, synthesis) and compares commercial and open-source implementations.

Pith tools