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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
SWR-Bench: Assessing LLM Performance in Real-World Code Review Comment Generation
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%.
-
AI-Assisted Fixes to Code Review Comments at Scale
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.
-
What Motivates Whom? A Survey of Newcomers to OSS and Experienced OSS Practitioners
Demographics and motivations correlate with OSS project-selection preferences, with distinct patterns for newcomers versus experienced practitioners in a 208-person survey.
-
A Comprehensive Survey of Deep Research: Systems, Methodologies, and Applications
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.