Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Automating Code Review: A Systematic Literature Review

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 2503.09510 v1 pith:H2LQXDNT submitted 2025-03-12 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords codereviewtechniquesgivenliteraturetasksusedautomation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Code Review consists in assessing the code written by teammates with the goal of increasing code quality. Empirical studies documented the benefits brought by such a practice that, however, has its cost to pay in terms of developers' time. For this reason, researchers have proposed techniques and tools to automate code review tasks such as the reviewers selection (i.e., identifying suitable reviewers for a given code change) or the actual review of a given change (i.e., recommending improvements to the contributor as a human reviewer would do). Given the substantial amount of papers recently published on the topic, it may be challenging for researchers and practitioners to get a complete overview of the state-of-the-art. We present a systematic literature review (SLR) featuring 119 papers concerning the automation of code review tasks. We provide: (i) a categorization of the code review tasks automated in the literature; (ii) an overview of the under-the-hood techniques used for the automation, including the datasets used for training data-driven techniques; (iii) publicly available techniques and datasets used for their evaluation, with a description of the evaluation metrics usually adopted for each task. The SLR is concluded by a discussion of the current limitations of the state-of-the-art, with insights for future research directions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Rethinking Training Data for Generating Code Review Comments

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Nearly half of the training pairs in a widely used code review comment dataset fail to support learning actionable, diff-grounded review feedback, and taxonomy-guided LLM filtering does not reliably fix this.

Pith tools