{"ID":2921015,"CreatedAt":"2026-06-02T02:42:49.606572591Z","UpdatedAt":"2026-06-04T07:41:34.29888543Z","DeletedAt":null,"paper_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01969","arxiv_id":"2606.01969","title":"Trust-Calibrated Code Review: A Participatory Design Study of Review Workflows for LLM-Generated Multi-File Changes","abstract":"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.","short_abstract":"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 envisi...","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01969","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.01969v1","authors":"[\"Lo Gullstrand Heander\",\"Agnia Sergeyuk\",\"Ilya Zakharov\",\"Emma Söderberg\",\"Nikita Mukhortov\"]","published":"2026-06-01T09:32:25Z","proceeding":"cs.SE","tasks":"[\"cs.SE\",\"cs.HC\"]","methods":"[\"Large Language Model\"]","has_code":false}