Code Review Agent Benchmark
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Software engineering agents have shown significant promise in writing code. As AI agents permeate code writing, and generate huge volumes of code automatically -- the matter of code quality comes front and centre. As the automatically generated code gets integrated into huge code-bases -- the issue of code review and broadly quality assurance becomes important. In this paper, we take a fresh look at the problem and curate a code review dataset for AI agents to work with. Our dataset called c-CRAB (pronounced see-crab) can evaluate agents for code review tasks. Specifically given a pull-request (which could be coming from code generation agents or humans), if a code review agent produces a review, our evaluation framework can asses the reviewing capability of the code review agents. Our evaluation framework is used to evaluate the state of the art today -- the open-source PR-agent, as well as commercial code review agents from Devin, Claude Code, and Codex. Our c-CRAB dataset is systematically constructed from human reviews -- given a human review of a pull request instance we generate corresponding tests to evaluate the code review agent generated reviews. Such a benchmark construction gives us several insights. Firstly, the existing review agents taken together can solve only around 40% of the c-CRAB tasks, indicating the potential to close this gap by future research. Secondly, we observe that the agent reviews often consider different aspects from the human reviews -- indicating the potential for human-agent collaboration for code review that could be deployed in future software teams. Last but not the least, the agent generated tests from our data-set act as a held out test-suite and hence quality gate for agent generated reviews. What this will mean for future collaboration of code generation agents, test generation agents and code review agents -- remains to be investigated.
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 18 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Mar 2026.
Builds on
18 of 42 references.
Closest ancestors · 5
Same direction, newest first
- 2026CR-Bench: Evaluating the Real-World Utility of AI Code Review Agents10 Mar
- 2026FeatureBench: Benchmarking Agentic Coding for Complex Feature Development11 Feb
- 2026Agentic Much? Adoption of Coding Agents on GitHub26 Jan
- 2025Issue-Oriented Agent-Based Framework for Automated Review Comment Generation1 Nov
- 2024CodeAgent: Autonomous Communicative Agents for Code Review3 Feb
Other references · 13
- 2024Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 249
- 2022Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-trainingcited by 98
- 2025FEA-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Repository-Level Code Generation for Feature Implementationcited by 57
- 2021Towards Automating Code Review Activitiescited by 54
- 2024AI-powered Code Review with LLMs: Early Resultscited by 22
- 2024DeepCRCEval: Revisiting the Evaluation of Code Review Comment Generationcited by 12
- 2024CRScore: Grounding Automated Evaluation of Code Review Comments in Code Claims and Smellscited by 8
- 2026RovoDev Code Reviewer: A Large-Scale Online Evaluation of LLM-based Code Review Automation at Atlassiancited by 6
- 2025SWR-Bench: Assessing LLM Performance in Real-World Code Review Comment Generationcited by 5
- 2025CodeFuse-CR-Bench: A Comprehensiveness-aware Benchmark for End-to-End Code Review Evaluation in Python Projectscited by 5
- 2026AACR-Bench: Evaluating Automatic Code Review with Holistic Repository-Level Contextcited by 5
- 2025Deep Assessment of Code Review Generation Approaches: Beyond Lexical Similaritycited by 4
1 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026SWE-Cycle: Benchmarking Code Agents across the Complete Issue Resolution Cyclecited by 4
- 2026Code Broker: A Multi-Agent System for Automated Code Quality Assessmentcited by 0
- 2026BulkPR-Bench: Benchmarking Queue-Level Governance of Interacting Pull Requestscited by 0
- 2026Can LLMs Fix It Without Code? Toward Automated Verification of No-Code Bug Fixescited by 0
- 2026Can LLMs Fix It Without Code? Toward Automated Verification of No-Code Bug Fixes8 Oct 2026
- 2026BulkPR-Bench: Benchmarking Queue-Level Governance of Interacting Pull Requests3 Aug 2026
- 2026SWE-Cycle: Benchmarking Code Agents across the Complete Issue Resolution Cycle13 May 2026
- 2026Code Broker: A Multi-Agent System for Automated Code Quality Assessment25 Apr 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review
- 2026The End of Code Review: Coding Agents Supersede Human Inspection
- 2026Is Agentic Code Review Helpful? Mining Developers' Feedback to CodeRabbit Reviews in the Wild
- 2026Human-AI Synergy in Agentic Code Review
- 2026From Code Review to Code Critique: Intent, Drift, and Spotlight for AI-Generated Diffs at Scale
- 2026SWE-Review: Closing the Loop on Issue Resolution with Agentic Code Review
- 2026Using Agentic AI for contextualized and multifaceted code review at Ericsson
- 2026AgentLens: Production-Assessed Trajectory Reviews for Coding Agent Evaluation