Quo Vadis, Code Review? Exploring the Future of Code Review
Michael Dorner, Andreas Bauer, Darja \v{S}mite, Lukas Thode, Daniel Mendez, Ricardo Britto, Stephan Lukasczyk, Ehsan Zabardast, Michael Kormann

TL;DR
This paper surveys developers' expectations for the future of code review, highlighting increased automation with AI and LLMs, and discusses socio-technical challenges related to trust and accountability.
Contribution
It provides empirical insights into how professionals foresee automation transforming code review and identifies emerging tensions with AI integration.
Findings
Practitioners expect stable or increased review time over five years.
Many anticipate automation, AI, and LLMs will play larger roles in code review.
Emerging tensions include issues of understanding, accountability, and trust in automated review.
Abstract
Context: Code review has long been a core practice in collaborative software engineering. As automation becomes increasingly embedded in development workflows, the role and functioning of code review are subject to change. Objective: This study explores how professional developers anticipate the evolution of code review and identifies emerging tensions reflected in these expectations. Method: We conducted a cross-sectional survey with 100 developers across five software-driven companies. The survey captured estimates of current review time and reviewed artifacts, as well as anticipated changes over a five-year horizon. Open-ended questions invited reflections on the future of code review. Quantitative responses were analyzed descriptively, and open-ended responses were independently coded by multiple researchers using thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns in participant…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
