From Human-Centric to Agentic Code Review: The Impact of Different Generations of Generative AI Technology on Review Quality

Hugging Face Daily Papers Papers
code-review generative-ai llm ai-agents software-quality empirical-study

Summary

This paper studies 1.02 million pull requests to analyze the transition from human-centric to AI agentic code review, finding that agent-involved patterns improve efficiency but not quality.

Code review helps maintain software quality before code integration, but it also imposes a substantial workload on human reviewers. As generative artificial intelligence becomes part of software development, code review is shifting from a primarily human review process toward AI-supported review processes in which large language model (LLM) reviewers and AI agent reviewers participate alongside human reviewers. However, we still lack empirical evidence on how this transition affects review efficiency and review quality. In this paper, we study 1.02 million reviewed pull requests from 207 GitHub projects that transition across three code review eras: human-centric review, LLM-assisted review, and agentic code review. We identify three AI reviewer adoption practices: Gradual AI Adoption, Rapid LLM Adoption, and Rapid AI Agent Adoption. We further model pull request review discussions as reviewer interaction sequences to characterize how human, LLM, and AI agent reviewers collaborate during the review process. Our results show that agent-involved collaboration patterns, especially reviews initiated by AI agents or involving multiple AI agents, are associated with faster review decisions under Gradual AI Adoption and Rapid AI Agent Adoption. However, these efficiency gains do not translate into better review quality. We also find that review activity and pull request type remain important across eras, while human-AI collaboration patterns become the strongest explanatory factor for review efficiency once LLM and AI agent reviewers participate. These findings provide empirical guidance for designing AI-supported code review processes that improve efficiency without weakening review quality.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 07/20/26, 09:40 AM

Paper page - From Human-Centric to Agentic Code Review: The Impact of Different Generations of Generative AI Technology on Review Quality

Source: https://huggingface.co/papers/2607.13196

Abstract

Codereviewhelpsmaintainsoftwarequalitybeforecodeintegration,butitalsoimposesasubstantialworkloadonhumanreviewers.Asgenerativeartificialintelligencebecomespartofsoftwaredevelopment,codereviewisshiftingfromaprimarilyhumanreviewprocesstowardAI-supportedreviewprocessesinwhichlargelanguagemodel(LLM)reviewersandAIagentreviewersparticipatealongsidehumanreviewers.However,westilllackempiricalevidenceonhowthistransitionaffectsreviewefficiencyandreviewquality.Inthispaper,westudy1.02millionreviewedpullrequestsfrom207GitHubprojectsthattransitionacrossthreecoderevieweras:human-centricreview,LLM-assistedreview,andagenticcodereview.WeidentifythreeAIrevieweradoptionpractices:GradualAIAdoption,RapidLLMAdoption,andRapidAIAgentAdoption.Wefurthermodelpullrequestreviewdiscussionsasreviewerinteractionsequencestocharacterizehowhuman,LLM,andAIagentreviewerscollaborateduringthereviewprocess.Ourresultsshowthatagent-involvedcollaborationpatterns,especiallyreviewsinitiatedbyAIagentsorinvolvingmultipleAIagents,areassociatedwithfasterreviewdecisionsunderGradualAIAdoptionandRapidAIAgentAdoption.However,theseefficiencygainsdonottranslateintobetterreviewquality.Wealsofindthatreviewactivityandpullrequesttyperemainimportantacrosseras,whilehuman-AIcollaborationpatternsbecomethestrongestexplanatoryfactorforreviewefficiencyonceLLMandAIagentreviewersparticipate.ThesefindingsprovideempiricalguidancefordesigningAI-supportedcodereviewprocessesthatimproveefficiencywithoutweakeningreviewquality.

View arXiv pageView PDFAdd to collection

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2607\.13196

Don’t have the latest CLI?curl \-LsSf https://hf\.co/cli/install\.sh \| bash

Models citing this paper0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.13196 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.13196 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.13196 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to acollectionto link it from this page.

Similar Articles

Agentic Code Review (15 minute read)

TLDR AI

An analysis of how AI coding agents have shifted the bottleneck from writing code to reviewing it, with data showing a 861% increase in code churn and a rise in defect rates, making code review the most leveraged skill in software engineering.

AI Generated Code Quality

Reddit r/AI_Agents

The article discusses concerns that as AI tools generate increasing amounts of code, future models trained on this synthetic code may suffer from reduced quality and originality, and asks how major AI labs like OpenAI, Anthropic, and GitHub plan to address this issue.

Are coding agents creating a new review problem?

Reddit r/AI_Agents

The article discusses how while coding agents can effectively generate code, they introduce a new bottleneck in reviewing and trusting the changes, questioning whether agents reduce or shift the review workload.