Understanding Practitioners’ Expectations on Clear Code Review Comments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The code review comment (CRC) is pivotal in the process of modern code review. It provides reviewers with the opportunity to identify potential bugs, offer constructive feedback, and suggest improvements. Clear and concise code review comments (CRCs) facilitate the communication between developers and are crucial to the correct understanding of the identified issues and proposed solutions. Despite the importance of CRCs’ clarity, there is still a lack of guidelines on what constitutes a good clarity and how to evaluate it. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive study on understanding and evaluating the clarity of CRCs. We first derive a set of attributes related to the clarity of CRCs, namely RIE attributes (i.e., Relevance, Informativeness, and Expression), as well as their corresponding evaluation criteria based on our literature review and survey with practitioners. We then investigate the clarity of CRCs in open-source projects written in nine programming languages and find that a large portion (i.e., 28.8%) of the CRCs lack the clarity in at least one of the attributes. Finally, we explore the potential of automatically evaluating the clarity of CRCs by proposing ClearCRC. Experimental results show that ClearCRC with pre-trained language models is promising for effective evaluation of the clarity of CRCs, achieving a balanced accuracy up to 73.04% and a F-1 score up to 94.61%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.191 | 0.666 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".