3100 Opinions on Code Review in an AI World: Building Causal Theory from Practitioner Discourse

Abstract: Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built. Repository-mining studies measure surface trends but seldom explain the mechanisms beneath them, and the trends themselves prove unstable. A motivating observational analysis of public GITHUB activity finds that agent-authored pull requests are reviewed less often, merged several times faster, and discussed less than human-authored ones, yet the direction of these trends flips under different but equally defensible analysis choices, so the traces establish what is changing without explaining why. To recover the mechanisms, we synthesize practitioner discourse at scale into an explanatory theory: we collect 38,709 grey-literature documents (engineering blogs and Reddit threads), filter to those substantively about code review, and code a stratified random sample of 3,100 with an LLM-assisted pipeline, from which we build a causal model of 26 constructs and 67 relationships (64 directed, 3 contested). Its organizing claim is that review is the control point through which a coding agent's effect on software is decided, and that AI does not fix the sign of that effect: the team sets it, through the expertise its humans bring and how it structures the review process. The theory makes the competing positions explicit and turns "AI is changing code review" into falsifiable propositions with named constructs and moderators. As a secondary contribution, we offer the underlying LLM-assisted, grey-literature theory-building method as a scalable template for software-engineering research, with a public implementation.
Submission history
Access Paper:

Current browse context:
References & Citations
BibTeX formatted citation


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.
Verified source · arXiv.org
Reported by arXiv.org. Open the original for full media and formatting.
More in Agents
All newsA Transdiagnostic Space of Disorder Like Phenotypes in Reinforcement Learning Agents
arXiv:2607.07753v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modelling psychological disorders in artificial agents offers both a testbed for computational psychiatry and a lens on the failure modes of affective control. Prior work induces one or two disorders in a reinforcement learning (…
Read at arXiv cs.AIJet-Long: Efficient Long-Context Extension with Dynamic Bifocal RoPE
arXiv:2607.07740v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern LLMs are increasingly deployed in long-context applications such as retrieval-augmented generation, repository-level coding, and agentic workflows whose accumulated reasoning and tool traces routinely push the input an ord…
Read at arXiv cs.AICollective Intelligence with Foundation Models
arXiv:2607.07729v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As foundation models grow in scale and diversity, coordinating multiple models into cooperative reasoning systems offers a path toward safer, more reliable AI. This chapter presents a multi-agent framework where solver models gen…
Read at arXiv cs.AIFrom Triggers to Emotions: A CPM-Grounded Appraisal Multi-Agent for Dynamic Emotional Evolution in Persona-Based Dialogue
arXiv:2607.07824v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have substantially advanced persona-based dialogue agents for emotion-sensitive role simulation in healthcare, education, counseling, customer service, and interactive storytelling. However, two relat…
Read at arXiv cs.AI