Using Agentic AI for contextualized and multifaceted code review at Ericsson
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Context: Conducting effective code reviews is increasingly challenging due to the growing complexity of software systems and the accelerated code generation by AI coding agents. LLM-based approaches for code reviews have shown promising results in identifying defects and improving code quality. However, existing approaches rarely consider project-specific contextualized knowledge, and few have been evaluated in industrial settings. Objective: In this study, we propose a multi-agent-based solution that provides multifaceted assessments of code changes. Method: Following the Design Science Research Process, we developed and evaluated our solution in an industrial setting. Our solution combines specialized agent skills with context-specific knowledge to identify antipatterns in code changes across four dimensions: readability, maintainability, reliability, and performance. Using our solution, we generated reviews for several code commits and identified more than 200 issues. These issues were then manually validated by the developers of the case company for their correctness and importance. Results: The evaluation results show that our solution achieves 96% accuracy in correctly identifying issues in the investigated code commits. Furthermore, around 69% of the correctly identified issues were rated as important, with approximately 33% rated as severe issues that must be fixed and 36% as important issues that should be fixed. Qualitative feedback from developers corroborates these findings and highlights the usefulness of the generated reviews. Conclusion: Our findings provide empirical evidence from an industrial evaluation that combining specialized agent skills with context-specific knowledge yields accurate, practically useful code reviews.
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 13 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Sep 2026.
Builds on
13 of 31 references.
References · 13
- 2025BitsAI-CR: Automated Code Review via LLM in Practicecited by 22
- 2024Exploring the Capabilities of LLMs for Code Change Related Taskscited by 18
- 2024Modern Code Reviews -- Survey of Literature and Practicecited by 6
- 2026RovoDev Code Reviewer: A Large-Scale Online Evaluation of LLM-based Code Review Automation at Atlassiancited by 6
- 2025Automated Code Review Using Large Language Models at Ericsson: An Experience Reportcited by 5
- 2022Mining Code Review Data to Understand Waiting Times Between Acceptance and Merging: An Empirical Analysiscited by 4
- 2025Benchmarking LLMs for Fine-Grained Code Review with Enriched Context in Practicecited by 4
- 2024A Roadmap on Modern Code Review: Challenges and Opportunitiescited by 3
- 2017Studying the Prevalence of Exception Handling Anti-Patternscited by 2
- 2024Reassessing Java Code Readability Models with a Human-Centered Approachcited by 2
- 2026The AI-Native Large-Scale Agile Software Development Manifestocited by 2
- 2024Help Me to Understand this Commit! -- A Vision for Contextualized Code Reviewscited by 1
1 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Is Agentic Code Review Helpful? Mining Developers' Feedback to CodeRabbit Reviews in the Wild
- 2026Human-AI Synergy in Agentic Code Review
- 2026CR-Bench: Evaluating the Real-World Utility of AI Code Review Agents
- 2026SWE-Review: Closing the Loop on Issue Resolution with Agentic Code Review
- 2026Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review
- 2025Automatically Benchmarking LLM Code Agents through Agent-Driven Annotation and Evaluation
- 2024CodeAgent: Autonomous Communicative Agents for Code Review
- 2026Understanding Dominant Themes in Reviewing Agentic AI-authored Code