mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Understanding Practitioners' Expectations on Clear Code Review Comments

arXiv 2410.06515 ↗First posted 9 Oct 2024cs.SEcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The code review comment (CRC) is pivotal in the process of modern code review. It provides reviewers with the opportunity to identify potential bugs, offer constructive feedback, and suggest improvements. Clear and concise code review comments (CRCs) facilitate the communication between developers and are crucial to the correct understanding of the identified issues and proposed solutions. Despite the importance of CRCs' clarity, there is still a lack of guidelines on what constitutes a good clarity and how to evaluate it. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive study on understanding and evaluating the clarity of CRCs. We first derive a set of attributes related to the clarity of CRCs, namely RIE attributes (i.e., Relevance, Informativeness, and Expression), as well as their corresponding evaluation criteria based on our literature review and survey with practitioners. We then investigate the clarity of CRCs in open-source projects written in nine programming languages and find that a large portion (i.e., 28.8%) of the CRCs lack the clarity in at least one of the attributes. Finally, we explore the potential of automatically evaluating the clarity of CRCs by proposing ClearCRC. Experimental results show that ClearCRC with pre-trained language models is promising for effective evaluation of the clarity of CRCs, achieving a balanced accuracy up to 73.04% and a F-1 score up to 94.61%.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2024.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 3.

4 papers.