Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Code review has evolved for decades, from informal peer checking to today's pull request (PR) workflows, yet it remains a largely manual and cognitively demanding process. The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) coding assistants has intensified this challenge: while these tools increase code production velocity, they also expand the volume of code requiring review, turning code review into a growing bottleneck. Current AI support in code review remains fragmented, with tools focusing on isolated tasks such as reviewer recommendation, PR description generation, or comment suggestion rather than the end-to-end PR review workflow. We address this gap by treating review effectiveness as an outcome of the full code review lifecycle rather than a single stage, proposing a framework that carries context across stage boundaries. We propose a future vision for code review in which reviewers transition from manual inspectors into supervisory operators of agents. In this vision, staged, AI-powered workflows aim to align the pace of code generation with shared understanding and accountable engineering. In this paper, we review the historical evolution of code review practices, identify challenges in traditional code review systems, and examine the shift driven by large language models (LLMs) and agentic AI systems. We then present a vision for an AI-powered code review workflow combining specialized agents with human-controlled quality gates. Our framework spans five stages: PR Creation, PR Augmentation, Reviewer Selection, AI-Assisted Code Review, and PR Retrospective, with humans retained at key decision points to preserve judgment, accountability, and team-level understanding. Finally, we identify key adoption challenges and outline research directions for evaluation, governance, and responsible human-AI collaboration.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper 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 90 of its 250 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 May 2026.
Builds on
90 of 250 references.
Closest ancestors · 8
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Human-AI Synergy in Agentic Code Review16 Mar
- 2026TraceCoder: A Trace-Driven Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Debugging of LLM-Generated Code6 Feb
- 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub21 Jan
- 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub18 Sep
- 2025SemAgent: A Semantics Aware Program Repair Agent19 Jun
- 2025Evaluating Agent-based Program Repair at Google13 Jan
- 2024CodeAgent: Autonomous Communicative Agents for Code Review3 Feb
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation16 Aug
Other references · 82
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
- 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,383
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,144
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,783
- 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,657
- 2020WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shiftscited by 1,366
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
- 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,196
- 2023Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarizationcited by 444
38 more
- 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 417
- 2023The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilotcited by 264
- 2023Auto-GPT for Online Decision Making: Benchmarks and Additional Opinionscited by 250
- 2023Using an LLM to Help With Code Understandingcited by 222
- 2024AI Agents That Mattercited by 199
- 2024The Emerged Security and Privacy of LLM Agent: A Survey with Case Studiescited by 127
- 2025In Prospect and Retrospect: Reflective Memory Management for Long-term Personalized Dialogue Agentscited by 102
- 2022Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-trainingcited by 98
- 2024LLM Hallucinations in Practical Code Generation: Phenomena, Mechanism, and Mitigationcited by 92
- 2022Using Pre-Trained Models to Boost Code Review Automationcited by 63
- 2021Towards Automating Code Review Activitiescited by 54
- 2019Combating the Compounding-Error Problem with a Multi-step Modelcited by 52
- 2023LLaMA-Reviewer: Advancing Code Review Automation with Large Language Models through Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuningcited by 47
- 2019Getafix: Learning to Fix Bugs Automaticallycited by 40
- 2020CC2Vec: Distributed Representations of Code Changescited by 38
- 2023Investigating and Designing for Trust in AI-powered Code Generation Toolscited by 34
- 2021CodeQA: A Question Answering Dataset for Source Code Comprehensioncited by 30
- 2024Source Code Summarization in the Era of Large Language Modelscited by 30
- 2025Vibe Coding in Practice: Motivations, Challenges, and a Future Outlook -- a Grey Literature Reviewcited by 28
- 2024AutoDev: Automated AI-Driven Developmentcited by 24
- 2022AUGER: Automatically Generating Review Comments with Pre-training Modelscited by 23
- 2024How secure is AI-generated Code: A Large-Scale Comparison of Large Language Modelscited by 23
- 2025BitsAI-CR: Automated Code Review via LLM in Practicecited by 22
- 2023Exploring ChatGPT for Toxicity Detection in GitHubcited by 15
- 2021JITLine: A Simpler, Better, Faster, Finer-grained Just-In-Time Defect Predictioncited by 14
- 2018Predicting Usefulness of Code Review Comments using Textual Features and Developer Experiencecited by 13
- 2019Automatic Generation of Pull Request Descriptionscited by 13
- 2024InfiBench: Evaluating the Question-Answering Capabilities of Code Large Language Modelscited by 13
- 2024DeepCRCEval: Revisiting the Evaluation of Code Review Comment Generationcited by 12
- 2025Too Noisy To Learn: Enhancing Data Quality for Code Review Comment Generationcited by 12
- 2020A Fine-grained Data Set and Analysis of Tangling in Bug Fixing Commitscited by 11
- 2022CodeQueries: A Dataset of Semantic Queries over Codecited by 11
- 2024The Impact of Generative AI on Collaborative Open-Source Software Development: Evidence from GitHub Copilotcited by 11
- 2024CodeRepoQA: A Large-scale Benchmark for Software Engineering Question Answeringcited by 11
- 2015Untangling Fine-Grained Code Changescited by 10
- 2023What Makes a Code Review Useful to OpenDev Developers? An Empirical Investigationcited by 10
- 2024Generative AI for Pull Request Descriptions: Adoption, Impact, and Developer Interventionscited by 10
- 2024Towards More Trustworthy and Interpretable LLMs for Code through Syntax-Grounded Explanationscited by 10
50 most cited of 82 All 82 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026From Human-Centric to Agentic Code Review: The Impact of Different Generations of Generative AI Technology on Review Quality
- 2026From Code Review to Code Critique: Intent, Drift, and Spotlight for AI-Generated Diffs at Scale
- 2026The End of Code Review: Coding Agents Supersede Human Inspection
- 20263100 Opinions on Code Review in an AI World: Building Causal Theory from Practitioner Discourse
- 2026Early-Stage Prediction of Review Effort in AI-Generated Pull Requests
- 2026Understanding Dominant Themes in Reviewing Agentic AI-authored Code
- 2026CR-Bench: Evaluating the Real-World Utility of AI Code Review Agents
- 2026From Industry Claims to Empirical Reality: An Empirical Study of Code Review Agents in Pull Requests