Quality Gatekeepers: Investigating the Effects ofCode Review Bots on Pull Request Activities
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Software bots have been facilitating several development activities in Open Source Software (OSS) projects, including code review. However, these bots may bring unexpected impacts to group dynamics, as frequently occurs with new technology adoption. Understanding and anticipating such effects is important for planning and management. To analyze these effects, we investigate how several activity indicators change after the adoption of a code review bot. We employed a regression discontinuity design on 1,194 software projects from GitHub. We also interviewed 12 practitioners, including open-source maintainers and contributors. Our results indicate that the adoption of code review bots increases the number of monthly merged pull requests, decreases monthly non-merged pull requests, and decreases communication among developers. From the developers' perspective, these effects are explained by the transparency and confidence the bot comments introduce, in addition to the changes in the discussion focused on pull requests. Practitioners and maintainers may leverage our results to understand, or even predict, bot effects on their projects.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 25 Mar 2021.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 4.
8 papers.
- 2024Motivations, Challenges, Best Practices, and Benefits for Bots and Conversational Agents in Software Engineering: A Multivocal Literature Reviewcited by 6
- 2023Predicting the First Response Latency of Maintainers and Contributors in Pull Requestscited by 3
- 2023Understanding the Helpfulness of Stale Bot for Pull-based Development: An Empirical Study of 20 Large Open-Source Projectscited by 2
- 2026On the Footprints of Reviewer Bots Feedback on Agentic Pull Requests in OSS GitHub Repositoriescited by 1
- 2026Beyond Simpson's Paradox: A Cascade of Confounders in AI Agent Pull-Request Co-Authorshipcited by 1
- 2026Where Accountability Lives: Mapping Human Responsibility to Workflow Artifacts in Agentic Software Developmentcited by 1
- 2025A Human Behavioral Baseline for Collective Governance in Software Projectscited by 0
- 2026Govern the Repository, Not the Agent: Measuring Ecosystem-Level Risk in AI-Native Softwarecited by 0
- 2026Where Accountability Lives: Mapping Human Responsibility to Workflow Artifacts in Agentic Software Development16 Aug 2026
- 2026Govern the Repository, Not the Agent: Measuring Ecosystem-Level Risk in AI-Native Software26 Jun 2026
- 2026Beyond Simpson's Paradox: A Cascade of Confounders in AI Agent Pull-Request Co-Authorship21 Jun 2026
- 2026On the Footprints of Reviewer Bots Feedback on Agentic Pull Requests in OSS GitHub Repositories27 Apr 2026
- 2025A Human Behavioral Baseline for Collective Governance in Software Projects10 Oct 2025
- 2024Motivations, Challenges, Best Practices, and Benefits for Bots and Conversational Agents in Software Engineering: A Multivocal Literature Review18 Sep 2024
- 2023Predicting the First Response Latency of Maintainers and Contributors in Pull Requests13 Nov 2023
- 2023Understanding the Helpfulness of Stale Bot for Pull-based Development: An Empirical Study of 20 Large Open-Source Projects29 May 2023