mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

AI-to-AI Code Reviews of GitHub Pull Requests

arXiv 2608.21311 ↗First posted 21 Aug 2026cs.SEcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

AI coding agents are increasingly integrated into software development workflows, operating on both sides of the pull-request (PR) process: AI authoring agents create or modify PRs, while AI reviewers evaluate them. This creates a closed loop in which one AI coding agent reviews a contribution attributed to another. We construct a large-scale dataset of AI-to-AI code review by linking AI-attributed PRs with AI-attributed review events from CodAGE, a public dataset of coding-agent-generated GitHub events. Our dataset contains 248,641 unique AI-attributed PRs that received at least one AI-attributed review. Of these, 45,269 received cross-product review and 208,145 received same-product review; 4,773 PRs received both. Cross-product AI-to-AI review occurred in approximately 1.6% of identified agent-authored PRs but was substantial in absolute terms, and its volume increased by more than two orders of magnitude from 2025-Q1 to 2025-Q3. Reviewer output varied across author-reviewer configurations. CodeRabbit labeled 35.0% of its comments on Claude Code-authored PRs as refactor comments, compared with 10.5% on Copilot-authored PRs, although this difference may reflect characteristics of the PRs rather than the reviewer. For three of four dual-role reviewers, mean comments per PR were 58-65% higher in the same-product group, although effect sizes were small or negligible and the difference was concentrated in the upper tail. Among pairs with complete, nonnegative timestamps, the observed median latency was 1.2 minutes for cross-product pairs and 4.7 minutes for same-product pairs; differential timestamp availability and reviewer composition limit this comparison. Overall, closed-loop AI-to-AI review is increasing but remains a minority of identified agent activity, with review output varying across authoring-agent groups and product configurations.

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. First posted on arXiv 21 Aug 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026On the Footprints of Reviewer Bots Feedback on Agentic Pull Requests in OSS GitHub Repositories
  2. 2026How AI Coding Agents Modify Code: A Large-Scale Study of GitHub Pull Requests
  3. 2026From Industry Claims to Empirical Reality: An Empirical Study of Code Review Agents in Pull Requests
  4. 2026Where Do AI Coding Agents Fail? An Empirical Study of Failed Agentic Pull Requests in GitHub
  5. 2026These Aren't the Reviews You're Looking For How Humans Review AI-Generated Pull Requests
  6. 2025On the Use of Agentic Coding: An Empirical Study of Pull Requests on GitHub
  7. 20263100 Opinions on Code Review in an AI World: Building Causal Theory from Practitioner Discourse
  8. 2026Predicting Acceptance and Review Effort in Human and Agent Pull Requests