mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Rethinking Code Review Workflows with LLM Assistance: An Empirical Study

arXiv 2505.16339 ↗First posted 22 May 2025cs.SEcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Code reviews are a critical yet time-consuming aspect of modern software development, increasingly challenged by growing system complexity and the demand for faster delivery. This paper presents a study conducted at WirelessCar Sweden AB, combining an exploratory field study of current code review practices with a field experiment involving two variations of an LLM-assisted code review tool. The field study identifies key challenges in traditional code reviews, including frequent context switching, insufficient contextual information, and highlights both opportunities (e.g., automatic summarization of complex pull requests) and concerns (e.g., false positives and trust issues) in using LLMs. In the field experiment, we developed two prototype variations: one offering LLM-generated reviews upfront and the other enabling on-demand interaction. Both utilize a semantic search pipeline based on retrieval-augmented generation to assemble relevant contextual information for the review, thereby tackling the uncovered challenges. Developers evaluated both variations in real-world settings: AI-led reviews are overall more preferred, while still being conditional on the reviewers' familiarity with the code base, as well as on the severity of the pull request.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 22 May 2025.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 8.

10 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025LAURA: Enhancing Code Review Generation with Context-Enriched Retrieval-Augmented LLM
  2. 2026Using Agentic AI for contextualized and multifaceted code review at Ericsson
  3. 2025Automated Code Review Using Large Language Models with Symbolic Reasoning
  4. 2026Is Agentic Code Review Helpful? Mining Developers' Feedback to CodeRabbit Reviews in the Wild
  5. 2026More Code, Less Reuse: Investigating Code Quality and Reviewer Sentiment towards AI-generated Pull Requests
  6. 2026Towards LLM Accelerated Rapid Reviews for Software Tool Discovery -- Case for Log Anomaly Detection
  7. 2025WIP: Leveraging LLMs for Enforcing Design Principles in Student Code: Analysis of Prompting Strategies and RAG ↗
  8. 2024Software Vulnerability and Functionality Assessment using LLMs