Accountability in Code Review: The Role of Intrinsic Drivers and the Impact of LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Accountability is an innate part of social systems. It maintains stability and ensures positive pressure on individuals' decision-making. As actors in a social system, software developers are accountable to their team and organization for their decisions. However, the drivers of accountability and how it changes behavior in software development are less understood. In this study, we look at how the social aspects of code review affect software engineers' sense of accountability for code quality. Since software engineering (SE) is increasingly involving Large Language Models (LLM) assistance, we also evaluate the impact on accountability when introducing LLM-assisted code reviews. We carried out a two-phased sequential qualitative study (interviews -> focus groups). In Phase I (16 interviews), we sought to investigate the intrinsic drivers of software engineers influencing their sense of accountability for code quality, relying on self-reported claims. In Phase II, we tested these traits in a more natural setting by simulating traditional peer-led reviews with focus groups and then LLM-assisted review sessions. We found that there are four key intrinsic drivers of accountability for code quality: personal standards, professional integrity, pride in code quality, and maintaining one's reputation. In a traditional peer-led review, we observed a transition from individual to collective accountability when code reviews are initiated. We also found that the introduction of LLM-assisted reviews disrupts this accountability process, challenging the reciprocity of accountability taking place in peer-led evaluations, i.e., one cannot be accountable to an LLM. Our findings imply that the introduction of AI into SE must preserve social integrity and collective accountability mechanisms.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 21 Feb 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 6; 2026: 2.
8 papers.
- 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHubcited by 55
- 2025Vibe Coding vs. Agentic Coding: Fundamentals and Practical Implications of Agentic AIcited by 42
- 2025Meta-RAG on Large Codebases Using Code Summarizationcited by 4
- 2025Embodied AI with Foundation Models for Mobile Service Robots: A Systematic Reviewcited by 3
- 2025Walking the Tightrope of LLMs for Software Development: A Practitioners' Perspectivecited by 2
- 2025SLEAN: Simple Lightweight Ensemble Analysis Network for Multi-Provider LLM Coordination: Design, Implementation, and Vibe Coding Bug Investigation Case Studycited by 0
- 2026Choose Your Own Adventure: Non-Linear AI-Assisted Programming with EvoGraphcited by 0
- 2026The Psychological Costs of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Software Engineeringcited by 0
- 2026The Psychological Costs of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Software Engineering3 Sep 2026
- 2026Choose Your Own Adventure: Non-Linear AI-Assisted Programming with EvoGraph20 Apr 2026
- 2025Walking the Tightrope of LLMs for Software Development: A Practitioners' Perspective9 Nov 2025
- 2025SLEAN: Simple Lightweight Ensemble Analysis Network for Multi-Provider LLM Coordination: Design, Implementation, and Vibe Coding Bug Investigation Case Study11 Oct 2025
- 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub18 Sep 2025
- 2025Meta-RAG on Large Codebases Using Code Summarization4 Aug 2025
- 2025Embodied AI with Foundation Models for Mobile Service Robots: A Systematic Review26 May 2025
- 2025Vibe Coding vs. Agentic Coding: Fundamentals and Practical Implications of Agentic AI26 May 2025