arXiv subjects

Mike Buller

Publications and source records attributed to Mike Buller.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

RovoDev Code Reviewer: A Large-Scale Online Evaluation of LLM-based Code Review Automation at Atlassian

Large Language Models (LLMs)-powered code review automation has the potential to transform code review workflows. Despite the advances of LLM-powered code review comment generation approaches, several practical challenges remain for designing enterprise-grade code review automation tools. In particular, this paper aims at answering the practical question: how can we design a review-guided, context-aware, quality-checked code review comment generation without fine-tuning? In this paper, we present RovoDev Code Reviewer, an enterprise-grade LLM-based code review automation tool designed and deployed at scale within Atlassian's development ecosystem with seamless integration into Atlassian's Bitbucket. Through the offline, online, user feedback evaluations over a one-year period, we conclude that RovoDev Code Reviewer is effective in generating code review comments that could lead to code resolution for 38.70% (i.e., comments that triggered code changes in the subsequent commits); and offers the promise of accelerating feedback cycles (i.e., decreasing the PR cycle time by 30.8%), alleviating reviewer workload (i.e., reducing the number of human-written comments by 35.6%), and improving overall software quality (i.e., finding errors with actionable suggestions).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

What Types of Code Review Comments Do Developers Most Frequently Resolve?

Large language model (LLM)-powered code review automation tools have been introduced to generate code review comments. However, not all generated comments will drive code changes. Understanding what types of generated review comments are likely to trigger code changes is crucial for identifying those that are actionable. In this paper, we set out to investigate (1) the types of review comments written by humans and LLMs, and (2) the types of generated comments that are most frequently resolved by developers. To do so, we developed an LLM-as-a-Judge to automatically classify review comments based on our own taxonomy of five categories. Our empirical study confirms that (1) the LLM reviewer and human reviewers exhibit distinct strengths and weaknesses depending on the project context, and (2) readability, bugs, and maintainability-related comments had higher resolution rates than those focused on code design. These results suggest that a substantial proportion of LLM-generated comments are actionable and can be resolved by developers. Our work highlights the complementarity between LLM and human reviewers and offers suggestions to improve the practical effectiveness of LLM-powered code review tools.

cs.SE↗