mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Issue-Oriented Agent-Based Framework for Automated Review Comment Generation

arXiv 2511.00517 ↗First posted 1 Nov 2025cs.SEcited by 4

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Code review (CR) is a crucial practice for ensuring software quality. Various automated review comment generation techniques have been proposed to streamline the labor-intensive process. However, existing approaches heavily rely on a single model to identify various issues within the code, limiting the model's ability to handle the diverse, issue-specific nature of code changes and leading to non-informative comments, especially in complex scenarios such as bug fixes. To address these limitations, we propose RevAgent, a novel agent-based issue-oriented framework, decomposes the task into three stages: (1) Generation Stage, where five category-specific commentator agents analyze code changes from distinct issue perspectives and generate candidate comments; (2) Discrimination Stage, where a critic agent selects the most appropriate issue-comment pair; and (3) Training Stage, where all agents are fine-tuned on curated, category-specific data to enhance task specialization. Evaluation results show that RevAgent significantly outperforms state-of-the-art PLM- and LLM-based baselines, with improvements of 12.90%, 10.87%, 6.32%, and 8.57% on BLEU, ROUGE-L, METEOR, and SBERT, respectively. It also achieves relatively higher accuracy in issue-category identification, particularly for challenging scenarios. Human evaluations further validate the practicality of RevAgent in generating accurate, readable, and context-aware review comments. Moreover, RevAgent delivers a favorable trade-off between performance and efficiency.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 40 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Nov 2025.

Builds on

40 of 66 references.

Closest ancestors · 6

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024MapCoder: Multi-Agent Code Generation for Competitive Problem Solving18 May
  2. 2024LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems for Software Engineering: Literature Review, Vision and the Road Ahead7 Apr
  3. 2024Elicitron: An LLM Agent-Based Simulation Framework for Design Requirements Elicitation4 Apr
  4. 2024CodeAgent: Autonomous Communicative Agents for Code Review3 Feb
  5. 2024CodeAgent: Enhancing Code Generation with Tool-Integrated Agent Systems for Real-World Repo-level Coding Challenges14 Jan
  6. 2023ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development16 Jul

Other references · 34

  1. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
  2. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
  3. 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
  4. 2024LlamaFactory: Unified Efficient Fine-Tuning of 100+ Language Modelscited by 1,442
  5. 2024DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligencecited by 1,154
  6. 2023Multi-Agent Collaboration: Harnessing the Power of Intelligent LLM Agentscited by 329
  7. 2023Large Language Models as Tool Makerscited by 293
  8. 2022Few-shot training LLMs for project-specific code-summarizationcited by 128
  9. 2022Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-trainingcited by 98
  10. 2023Automatic Semantic Augmentation of Language Model Prompts (for Code Summarization)cited by 72
  11. 2023Large Language Models are Few-Shot Summarizers: Multi-Intent Comment Generation via In-Context Learningcited by 71
  12. 2022Using Pre-Trained Models to Boost Code Review Automationcited by 63
22 more
  1. 2021Towards Automating Code Review Activitiescited by 54
  2. 2023Multi-Party Chat: Conversational Agents in Group Settings with Humans and Modelscited by 53
  3. 2022Bidirectional Language Models Are Also Few-shot Learnerscited by 48
  4. 2023Exploring the Potential of ChatGPT in Automated Code Refinement: An Empirical Studycited by 44
  5. 2023Chain-of-Thought in Neural Code Generation: From and For Lightweight Language Modelscited by 27
  6. 2022AUGER: Automatically Generating Review Comments with Pre-training Modelscited by 23
  7. 2025BitsAI-CR: Automated Code Review via LLM in Practicecited by 22
  8. 2024Code Review Automation: Strengths and Weaknesses of the State of the Artcited by 20
  9. 2023Developer-Intent Driven Code Comment Generationcited by 16
  10. 2022Semantic Similarity Metrics for Evaluating Source Code Summarizationcited by 14
  11. 2024Balancing Cost and Effectiveness of Synthetic Data Generation Strategies for LLMscited by 14
  12. 2024DeepCRCEval: Revisiting the Evaluation of Code Review Comment Generationcited by 12
  13. 2023Assessing and Enhancing the Robustness of Large Language Models with Task Structure Variations for Logical Reasoningcited by 10
  14. 2024LLMs vs Established Text Augmentation Techniques for Classification: When do the Benefits Outweight the Costs?cited by 8
  15. 2024Improving the Learning of Code Review Successive Tasks with Cross-Task Knowledge Distillationcited by 7
  16. 2025What Types of Code Review Comments Do Developers Most Frequently Resolve?cited by 7
  17. 2024Mitigating the Impact of Reference Quality on Evaluation of Summarization Systems with Reference-Free Metricscited by 5
  18. 2025An Empirical Study on Commit Message Generation using LLMs via In-Context Learningcited by 5
  19. 2025Exploiting Primacy Effect To Improve Large Language Modelscited by 5
  20. 2025Deep Assessment of Code Review Generation Approaches: Beyond Lexical Similaritycited by 4
  21. 2025Harnessing Large Language Models for Curated Code Reviewscited by 4
  22. 2025Clarifying Semantics of In-Context Examples for Unit Test Generationcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026SWE-Review: Closing the Loop on Issue Resolution with Agentic Code Review
  2. 2026Is Agentic Code Review Helpful? Mining Developers' Feedback to CodeRabbit Reviews in the Wild
  3. 2026"Go Home Copilot, You're Drunk": Understanding Developer Responses to Agent-Generated Code Review Comments
  4. 2026Understanding Dominant Themes in Reviewing Agentic AI-authored Code
  5. 2026CR-Bench: Evaluating the Real-World Utility of AI Code Review Agents
  6. 2026ReProAgent: Tool-Augmented Multi-Stage Agentic Generation of Bug Reproduction Tests from Issue Reports
  7. 2026CRJudgeBench: Can AI Detect Plausible but Invalid Code Reviews?
  8. 2026Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review