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.

A Preliminary Study on Explaining Risk of Code Changes using LLM-Based Prediction Models

Predictions by machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) models are often received skeptically unless they are paired with intelligible explanations. In the context of just-in-time defect prediction, highlighting small portions of a software change (diff) -- beyond rule-based lints -- where risk may be concentrated has not yet been extensively investigated. In this work, we leverage attention weights from an LLM-based Diff Risk Score (DRS) model to highlight parts of a diff that the model focuses on when predicting risk. We aggregate token-level attention into interpretable code units (lines, hunks, and files), and present the top-K units to developers as a lightweight form of guidance during code review. We evaluate our approach using expert-labeled changes that have caused real outages. Results show that the highlighted snippets cover expert-labeled outage-causing change lines 53.85% of the time when highlighting the top-2 hunks, while requiring developers to review 26.28% of the changed lines on average. Because attention is produced during standard model inference, the approach is scalable for large development workflows and can be surfaced in the code review UI with low additional latency.

AI-Generated Smells: An Analysis of Code and Architecture in LLM and Agent-Driven Development

The promise of Large Language Models in automated software engineering is often measured by functional correctness, overlooking the critical issue of long term maintainability. This paper presents a systematic audit of technical debt in AI-generated software, revealing that AI does not eliminate flaws but rather introduces a distinct machine signature of defects. Our multi-scale analysis, spanning single-file algorithmic tasks and complex, agent generated systems, identifies a fundamental Reasoning-Complexity Trade-off: as models become more capable, they generate increasingly bloated and coupled code. This architectural decay is so pronounced that we establish a Volume-Quality Inverse Law, where code volume is a near perfect predictor of structural degradation. Crucially, we demonstrate that neither functional correctness nor detailed prompting mitigates this decay. These findings challenge the current paradigm of prompt-driven generation, reframing the central problem of AI-based software engineering from one of code generation to one of architectural complexity management. We conclude that future progress depends on equipping agents with explicit architectural foresight to ensure the software they build is not just functional, but also maintainable.

Risk-Aware Batch Testing for Performance Regression Detection

Performance regression testing is essential in large-scale continuous-integration (CI) systems, yet executing full performance suites for every commit is prohibitively expensive. Prior work on performance regression prediction and batch testing has shown independent benefits, but each faces practical limitations: predictive models are rarely integrated into CI decision-making, and conventional batching strategies ignore commit-level heterogeneity. We unify these strands by introducing a risk-aware framework that integrates machine-learned commit risk with adaptive batching. Using Mozilla Firefox as a case study, we construct a production-derived dataset of human-confirmed regressions aligned chronologically with Autoland, and fine-tune ModernBERT, CodeBERT, and LLaMA-3.1 variants to estimate commit-level performance regression risk, achieving up to 0.694 ROC-AUC with CodeBERT. The risk scores drive a family of risk-aware batching strategies, including Risk-Aged Priority Batching and Risk-Adaptive Stream Batching, evaluated through realistic CI simulations. Across thousands of historical Firefox commits, our best overall configuration, Risk-Aged Priority Batching with linear aggregation (RAPB-la), yields a Pareto improvement over Mozilla's production-inspired baseline. RAPB-la reduces total test executions by 32.4%, decreases mean feedback time by 3.8%, maintains mean time-to-culprit at approximately the baseline level, reduces maximum time-to-culprit by 26.2%, and corresponds to an estimated annual infrastructure cost savings of approximately $491K under our cost model. These results demonstrate that risk-aware batch testing can reduce CI resource consumption while improving diagnostic timeliness. To support reproducibility and future research, we release a complete replication package containing all datasets, fine-tuning pipelines, and implementations of our batching algorithms.

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.