cs.SEApr 27, 2026

Understanding the Limits of Automated Evaluation for Code Review Bots in Practice

Authors: Veli Karakaya, Utku Boran Torun, Baykal Mehmet Uçar, Eray Tüzün

Abstract

Automated code review (ACR) bots are increasingly used in industrial software development to assist developers during pull request (PR) review. As adoption grows, a key challenge is how to evaluate the usefulness of bot-generated comments reliably and at scale. In practice, such evaluation often relies on developer actions and annotations that are shaped by contextual and organizational factors, complicating their use as objective ground truth. We examine the feasibility and limitations of automating the evaluation of LLM-powered ACR bots in an industrial setting. We analyze an industrial dataset from Beko comprising 2,604 bot-generated PR comments, each labeled by software engineers as fixed/wontFix. Two automated evaluation approaches, G-Eval and an LLM-as-a-Judge pipeline, are applied using both binary decisions and a 0-4 Likert-scale formulation, enabling a controlled comparison against developer-provided labels. Across Gemini-2.5-pro, GPT-4.1-mini, and GPT-5.2, both evaluation strategies achieve only moderate alignment with human labels. Agreement ratios range from approximately 0.44 to 0.62, with noticeable variation across models and between binary and Likert-scale formulations, indicating sensitivity to both model choice and evaluation design. Our findings highlight practical limitations in fully automating the evaluation of ACR bot comments in industrial contexts. Developer actions such as resolving or ignoring comments reflect not only comment quality, but also contextual constraints, prioritization decisions, and workflow dynamics that are difficult to capture through static artifacts. Insights from a follow-up interview with a software engineering director further corroborate that developer labeling behavior is strongly influenced by workflow pressures and organizational constraints, reinforcing the challenges of treating such signals as objective ground truth.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 3, 2026cs.SE

Is Agentic Code Review Helpful? Mining Developers' Feedback to CodeRabbit Reviews in the Wild

Agentic code review, where autonomous agents provide code review comments on pull requests, is increasingly integrated into development workflows, yet there is limited empirical evidence on how developers respond to such comments in practice. In this paper, we present an empirical study of agentic code reviews using CodeRabbit as a case study. Through an empirical study of 31,073 pairs of code reviews and developer feedback from 10,191 pull requests across 239 GitHub repositories, our results show that agentic reviews receive mixed reception: 36.4% were accepted and 7.3% triggered discussion, while 56.3% were rejected. Rejections were primarily associated with invalid suggestions that were false positives, redundant, or out of scope, as well as misalignment with developer intent and coding practices. We further found that agentic reviews tend to focus more on functional concerns than evolvability-related comments, yet they were more likely to be invalid. To improve effectiveness in review practices, we explored various LLM-based approaches for predicting review rejection. We found that lightweight learning-based methods achieve up to 76% F1 score, suggesting learnable patterns exist between code reviews and their corresponding feedback. Our results highlight the current state of CodeRabbit's agentic code reviews, showing opportunity gaps for improvement, as well as shortcomings hindering its effectiveness.
Hong Yi Lin, Mingzhao Liang, Kla Tantithamthavorn +1
Code QualityArtificial Intelligence ReviewersCoding AgentsRepositoryNatural Language FeedbackAlphaevolve
AskPDF
Jul 8, 2026cs.SE

3100 Opinions on Code Review in an AI World: Building Causal Theory from Practitioner Discourse

Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built. Repository-mining studies measure surface trends but seldom explain the mechanisms beneath them, and the trends themselves prove unstable. A motivating observational analysis of public GITHUB activity finds that agent-authored pull requests are reviewed less often, merged several times faster, and discussed less than human-authored ones, yet the direction of these trends flips under different but equally defensible analysis choices, so the traces establish what is changing without explaining why. To recover the mechanisms, we synthesize practitioner discourse at scale into an explanatory theory: we collect 38,709 grey-literature documents (engineering blogs and Reddit threads), filter to those substantively about code review, and code a stratified random sample of 3,100 with an LLM-assisted pipeline, from which we build a causal model of 26 constructs and 67 relationships (64 directed, 3 contested). Its organizing claim is that review is the control point through which a coding agent's effect on software is decided, and that AI does not fix the sign of that effect: the team sets it, through the expertise its humans bring and how it structures the review process. The theory makes the competing positions explicit and turns "AI is changing code review" into falsifiable propositions with named constructs and moderators. As a secondary contribution, we offer the underlying LLM-assisted, grey-literature theory-building method as a scalable template for software-engineering research, with a public implementation.
Shyam Agarwal, Courtney Miller, Christian Kästner +1
Code QualityCode RefactoringArtificial Intelligence ReviewersCoding AgentsArtificial Intelligence SystemsOpinions+4
AskPDF
Apr 18, 2026cs.SE

Bias in the Loop: Auditing LLM-as-a-Judge for Software Engineering

Large Language Models are increasingly used as judges to evaluate code artifacts when exhaustive human review or executable test coverage is unavailable. LLM-judge is increasingly relevant in agentic software engineering workflows, where it can help rank candidate solutions and guide patch selection. While attractive for scale, current practice lacks a principled account of reliability and bias: repeated evaluations of the same case can disagree; small prompt edits can swing outcomes; and seemingly semantics-preserving, human-equivalent perturbations may elicit divergent verdicts. This paper studies LLM-as-a-Judge for code through a measurement-first lens. We analyze two pointwise judging regimes across code generation, code repair task, and test generation, and we systematically probe prompt-induced biases. Our study considers difficulty levels for repeated runs and controlled prompt interventions that isolate one presentation cue at a time, and it evaluates judges using consistency and sensitivity to bias. We find that judge decisions are highly sensitive to prompt biases even when the underlying code snippet is unchanged. Across all three tasks, several biases systematically shift preferences toward the option favored by the prompt, improving accuracy when that option aligns with the gold answer but substantially reducing it otherwise. In some settings, these effects are large enough to change task-level conclusions and alter relative model rankings. These findings show that reported judge performance may reflect prompt artifacts rather than stable assessment ability, posing a direct threat to the validity and reproducibility of code evaluation. We therefore argue that LLM-as-a-Judge studies should report bias sensitivity alongside accuracy and incorporate explicit controls to support more trustworthy model comparison in software engineering.
Zixiao Zhao, Amirreza Esmaeili, Fatemeh Fard
Llm-As-A-JudgeCode QualitySoftware EngineeringBias Detection and MitigationAlgorithm AuditingRanking+1
AskPDF