From Code Review to Code Critique: Intent, Drift, and Spotlight for AI-Generated Diffs at Scale
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
AI coding agents are generating code at volumes that exceed the capacity of traditional peer review. At the same time, existing AI code review tools over-index on low-value suggestions such as style and best practices while under-indexing on the concerns human reviewers prioritize most: correctness, security, and performance. We present ARCTIC, an AI-powered Code Critique system that reframes code review around three capabilities: intent prediction, which infers why a change was made from conversation logs and metadata; drift detection, which measures divergence between the developer's intent and the agent's output via backtranslation; and code spotlight, which ranks the regions of a diff most warranting human scrutiny. We ground these capabilities in a six-theme taxonomy derived from 18,000 code reviews. Offline evaluation shows that intent prediction achieves 0.86 F1, drift detection reaches near-perfect ordinal agreement with human annotators (QWK = 0.907), and spotlight outperforms the baseline AI reviewer by 2.4x on quality estimation at 5x fewer tokens. In the experimental rollout, the drift scores reduces code misalignment by an additional 5.76 points (p = 0.026), intent prediction receives 90.2% approval, and zero defects have been attributed to self-reviewed diffs since launch.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 5 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Jul 2026.
Builds on
5 of 15 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 4
- 2022Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-trainingcited by 98
- 2024AI-Assisted Assessment of Coding Practices in Modern Code Reviewcited by 16
- 2020Nudge: Accelerating Overdue Pull Requests Towards Completioncited by 6
- 2024Moving Faster and Reducing Risk: Using LLMs in Release Deploymentcited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review
- 2026Human-AI Synergy in Agentic Code Review
- 2026Early-Stage Prediction of Review Effort in AI-Generated Pull Requests
- 2026From Human-Centric to Agentic Code Review: The Impact of Different Generations of Generative AI Technology on Review Quality
- 2026Understanding Dominant Themes in Reviewing Agentic AI-authored Code
- 2026CR-Bench: Evaluating the Real-World Utility of AI Code Review Agents
- 20263100 Opinions on Code Review in an AI World: Building Causal Theory from Practitioner Discourse
- 2026More Code, Less Reuse: Investigating Code Quality and Reviewer Sentiment towards AI-generated Pull Requests