From Code Review to Code Critique: Intent, Drift, and Spotlight for AI-Generated Diffs at Scale

AI coding agents are generating code at volumes that exceed the capacity of traditional peer review. At the same time, existing AI code review tools over-index on low-value suggestions such as style and best practices while under-indexing on the concerns human reviewers prioritize most: correctness, security, and performance. We present ARCTIC, an AI-powered Code Critique system that reframes code review around three capabilities: intent prediction, which infers why a change was made from conversation logs and metadata; drift detection, which measures divergence between the developer's intent and the agent's output via backtranslation; and code spotlight, which ranks the regions of a diff most warranting human scrutiny. We ground these capabilities in a six-theme taxonomy derived from 18,000 code reviews. Offline evaluation shows that intent prediction achieves 0.86 F1, drift detection reaches near-perfect ordinal agreement with human annotators (QWK = 0.907), and spotlight outperforms the baseline AI reviewer by 2.4x on quality estimation at 5x fewer tokens. In the experimental rollout, the drift scores reduces code misalignment by an additional 5.76 points (p = 0.026), intent prediction receives 90.2% approval, and zero defects have been attributed to self-reviewed diffs since launch.

Automating Low-Risk Code Review at Meta: RADAR, Risk Calibration, and Review Efficiency

AI-assisted coding tools have altered software production. At Meta, significant lines of code per human-landed diff grew by 105.9% year over year and per-developer diff volume rose 51%, with agentic AI responsible for over 80% of that growth. Meanwhile, the share of diffs receiving timely review has declined, exposing a widening gap between code supply and reviewer bandwidth. We ask three questions that progress from feasibility through calibration to impact: (1) can risk-stratified automation operate at scale across diverse organizations, (2) how does tuning the risk threshold affect the trade-off between automation yield and safety, and (3) to what extent does automated review reduce end-to-end latency for AI-generated changes? We deployed RADAR (Risk Aware Diff Auto Review), a multi-stage funnel that classifies each diff by authorship and source type, applies eligibility gates, static heuristics, a machine-learned Diff Risk Score, LLM-based Automated Code Review, and deterministic validation before landing qualifying changes. We evaluate RADAR through telemetry covering 535K+ RADAR-reviewed diffs, observational before-after comparisons for policy changes, and difference-in-differences analysis of efficiency outcomes. RADAR has reviewed 535K+ diffs and landed 331K+. Relaxing the Diff Risk Score threshold from the 25th to the 50th percentile increased the approve rate to 60.31%. The revert rate for RADAR-reviewed diffs is 1/3 that of non-RADAR diffs, and the Production Incident rate is 1/50 that of non-RADAR diffs. RADAR reduces median time to close by over 330% and median diff review wall time by 35%. Risk-aware layered automation can materially reduce review bottlenecks created by AI-driven code growth without compromising production safety.

AI-Assisted Fixes to Code Review Comments at Scale

Aim. There are 10s of thousands of code review comments each week at Meta. We developed Metamate for Code Review (MetaMateCR) that provides AI-assisted fixes for reviewer comments in production at scale. Method. We developed an internal benchmark of 64k <review comment, patch> data points to fine-tune Llama models. Once our models achieve reasonable offline results, we roll them into production. To ensure that our AI-assisted fixes do not negatively impact the time it takes to do code reviews, we conduct randomized controlled safety trials as well as full production experiments. Offline Results. As a baseline, we compare GPT-4o to our small and large Llama models. In offline results, our LargeLSFT model creates an exact match patch 68% of the time outperforming GPT-4o by 9 percentage points (pp). The internal models also use more modern Hack functions when compared to the PHP functions suggested by GPT-4o. Safety Trial. When we roll MetaMateCR into production in a safety trial that compares no AI patches with AI patch suggestions, we see a large regression with reviewers taking over 5% longer to conduct reviews. After investigation, we modify the UX to only show authors the AI patches, and see no regressions in the time for reviews. Production. When we roll LargeLSFT into production, we see an ActionableToApplied rate of 19.7%, which is a 9.2pp improvement over GPT-4o. Our results illustrate the importance of safety trials in ensuring that AI does not inadvertently slow down engineers, and a successful review comment to AI patch product running at scale.