Trust-Calibrated Code Review: A Participatory Design Study of Review Workflows for LLM-Generated Multi-File Changes — AI agent app

Lo Gullstrand Heander, Agnia Sergeyuk, Ilya Zakharov, Emma Söderberg, Nikita Mukhortov/Trust-Calibrated Code Review: A Participatory Design Study of Review Workflows for LLM-Generated Multi-File ChangesUnknown

Background: Developers increasingly review multi-file code changes generated by LLM-based agents, yet no validated end-to-end workflow or IDE tooling design exists for this scenario. Aims: We investigate (RQ1) the challenges developers face when reviewing LLM-generated multi-file changes and (RQ2) how developers envision effective workflows for this task. Method: In collaboration with JetBrains, we conducted a participatory design study structured using the double-diamond design process with Discover, Define, Develop, and Deliver phases. Industry practitioners participated in the Discover phase (N=17); seven of these returned for the Develop phase. The Define phase was an author-led synthesis. The Deliver phase produced a conceptual design and a high-fidelity semi-interactive prototype evaluated through a follow-up survey with N=43 practitioners. Results: Participants identified trust-calibration as the central challenge. The study yielded a three-level review workflow (overview, file-analysis, code snippet review) supported by seven design constructs (chunk, risk-per-line, risk-per-file, judge, walk-through, zooming in/out, and security cage). In the validation survey, all three workflow levels scored above the neutral midpoint (means 3.50--3.91 on a five-point scale). Of the respondents, 63% expected reduced overall review effort, and 52% reduced trust-assessment effort, relative to their current tools. These findings suggest that the design constructs indicate a positive direction for future tool development. Conclusions: Reviewing LLM-generated multi-file changes is a trust-calibration problem rather than a diffing problem. The three-level workflow and the seven constructs we report give tool designers a conceptual framework for building AI-ready code review tools that surface risk and confidence signals at the granularity at which developers allocate attention.

agent app

Stars0

Forks0

HF Downloads—30d

Last commit—

Refreshed2mo ago

Project healthUnknownNo activity data.

Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.

Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.

AgentHub Score

55 / 100

Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →

Active project

55Score

Growth

40C

Activity

30C

Documentation

70C+

Maturity

45C

Community

42C

Production

58C

GitHub stars · 38 days observed0 not enough history

snapshots

Repository activity · 38 days observedReal snapshots from pushed_at

inactivepushed

2026-07-262026-09-03

Practical assessment

Should you use it?

✓ Best for

Research and experimentation
Prototype development
Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

Active community
Open source
Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

Untested at scale without validation
Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

Review changelog before updating
Verify license for commercial use

Technical details

What's inside

Language—

License—

Sourcearxiv

Open source✗ No

Commercial use—

Docs—

Demo—

PaperarXiv ↗

AgentHub Score

Score 55/100

Below average

Alternatives

OccuReward: LLM-Guided Occupant-Centric Reward Shaping for Demographic Equity in Grid-Interactive Buildings

0 · agent app

Continuous Autonomous Refactoring: A Research Roadmap for AI-Driven Code Quality Maintenance

0 · agent app

Classic AI Scaffolding for LLM Social Agents

0 · agent app

SGHA: Evidence-Grounded Research Problem Discovery with Local Language Models

0 · agent app

55 Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——

Indexed by AgentHub crawler2mo ago

Monitor for new releasesongoing