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

[Submitted on 3 Jul 2026 (v1), last revised 23 Jul 2026 (this version, v2)]

View PDF

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.

Submission history

From: Hong Yi Lin [view email]
[v1] Fri, 3 Jul 2026 13:35:09 UTC (5,291 KB)
[v2] Thu, 23 Jul 2026 05:32:40 UTC (5,291 KB)