A vision for inclusive, human-centered AI-assisted code review systems that adapt feedback to developers' problem-solving preferences is outlined, highlighting the need to balance personalization with clarity and trust.
Abstract
Code review is essential for ensuring software quality and supporting collaboration, yet prior work shows that developers can interpret code review comments differently. These differences can hinder effective communication, particularly in collaborative settings. To address this challenge, we explore the potential of personified code review explanations. We report initial findings from an ongoing mixed-methods user study in which developers evaluated persona-aligned review comments across multiple code snippets. Our results suggest that preferences for explanation styles vary across problem-solving styles, experience levels, and roles. Across problem-solving style profiles, developers valued explanatory depth, learning support, practical suggestions, and risk awareness over conciseness, highlighting the need to balance personalization with clarity and trust. Based on these findings, we outline a vision for inclusive, human-centered AI-assisted code review systems that adapt feedback to developers'problem-solving preferences.
This paper is the first to investigate problem-solving style adaptations in LLM code explanation, contributing two problem-solving adaptation approaches: declarative statements for each adaptation and 10 problem-solving style prompts.
Andrew Anderson, David Piorkowski, Justin D. Weisz et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
TARS is an LLM-powered agent integrated into Visual Studio Code that supports program comprehension through autonomous explanations anchored directly to the code under analysis, built around a lightweight Theory of Mind paradigm.
Leopoldo Todisco, Antonio Della Porta, Stefano Lambiase et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate code review, but the reasoning behind their decisions remains hard to understand. Developers struggle to assess the validity of LLM-generated reviews, making it difficult to gauge how much trust to place in them. The role of Explainable AI (XAI)...
Zhenhan Gao, Marvin Muñoz Barón, Umm E. Habiba et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Findings are interpreted as evidence that course-aware style feedback is promising as a pre-submission revision aid, but that future versions should combine deterministic rule checks with LLM-generated explanations, rule citations, and stronger verification support.
Ethan Dickey, L. Vento, Peter Kurto et al.· 0 citations
This vision reframes AI code review from automated commenting to human-AI sensemaking before integration, and outlines a research agenda for studying review conversations, designing conversational AI review capabilities, and evaluating their impact on software evolution and maintenance.
A method called Personalized Probing Puzzles to evaluate students' understanding of their own code, and a pilot study shows that it can help identify potential gaps in students' understanding of their own code.
Yufan Zhang, Jaromir Savelka, S. Goldstein et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.