Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Products

aiqbench analysis

This empirical study analyzes the efficacy of autonomous agents like CodeRabbit in real-world development workflows, revealing that while LLM-based reviews are integrated into pull requests, they suffer from high rejection rates due to false positives and misalignment with developer intent. The research demonstrates that lightweight learning methods can predict these rejections with up to 76% accuracy, offering a pathway to refine agent behavior before it impacts productivity. Ultimately, the findings highlight critical gaps in current agentic tools regarding scope alignment and functional versus evolvability focus within software engineering practices.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Is Agentic Code Review Helpful? Mining Developers' Feedback to CodeRabbit Reviews in the Wild

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2607.03316v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Agentic code review, where autonomous agents provide code review comments on pull requests, is increasingly integrated into development workflows, yet there is limited empirical evidence on how developers respond to such comments in practice. In this paper, we present an empirical study of agentic code reviews using CodeRabbit as a case study. Through an empirical study of 31,073 pairs of code reviews and developer feedback from 10,191 pull requests across 239 GitHub repositories, our results show that agentic reviews receive mixed reception: 36.4% were accepted and 7.3% triggered discussion, while 56.3% were rejected. Rejections were primarily associated with invalid suggestions that were false positives, redundant, or out of scope, as well as misalignment with developer intent and coding practices. We further found that agentic reviews tend to focus more on functional concerns than evolvability-related comments, yet they were more likely to be invalid. To improve effectiveness in review practices, we explored various LLM-based approaches for predicting review rejection. We found that lightweight learning-based methods achieve up to 76% F1 score, suggesting learnable patterns exist between code reviews and their corresponding feedback. Our results highlight the current state of CodeRabbit's agentic code reviews, showing opportunity gaps for improvement, as well as shortcomings hindering its effectiveness.

Title:Is Agentic Code Review Helpful? Mining Developers' Feedback to CodeRabbit Reviews in the Wild

Abstract:Agentic code review, where autonomous agents provide code review comments on pull requests, is increasingly integrated into development workflows, yet there is limited empirical evidence on how developers respond to such comments in practice. In this paper, we present an empirical study of agentic code reviews using CodeRabbit as a case study. Through an empirical study of 31,073 pairs of code reviews and developer feedback from 10,191 pull requests across 239 GitHub repositories, our results show that agentic reviews receive mixed reception: 36.4% were accepted and 7.3% triggered discussion, while 56.3% were rejected. Rejections were primarily associated with invalid suggestions that were false positives, redundant, or out of scope, as well as misalignment with developer intent and coding practices. We further found that agentic reviews tend to focus more on functional concerns than evolvability-related comments, yet they were more likely to be invalid. To improve effectiveness in review practices, we explored various LLM-based approaches for predicting review rejection. We found that lightweight learning-based methods achieve up to 76% F1 score, suggesting learnable patterns exist between code reviews and their corresponding feedback. Our results highlight the current state of CodeRabbit's agentic code reviews, showing opportunity gaps for improvement, as well as shortcomings hindering its effectiveness.

Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2607.03316 [cs.SE]

(or arXiv:2607.03316v2 [cs.SE] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.03316 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 313 words

Related coverage