Mitigating turnover with code review recommendation: balancing expertise, workload, and knowledge distribution
Ehsan Mirsaeedi, Peter C. Rigby
Abstract
Developer turnover is inevitable on software projects and leads to knowledge loss, a reduction in productivity, and an increase in defects. Mitigation strategies to deal with turnover tend to disrupt and increase workloads for developers. In this work, we suggest that through code review recommendation we can distribute knowledge and mitigate turnover with minimal impact on the development process. We evaluate review recommenders in the context of ensuring expertise during review, Expertise, reducing the review workload of the core team, CoreWorkload, and reducing the Files at Risk to turnover, FaR. We find that prior work that assigns reviewers based on file ownership concentrates knowledge on a small group of core developers increasing risk of knowledge loss from turnover by up to 65%. We propose learning and retention aware review recommenders that when combined are effective at reducing the risk of turnover by -29% but they unacceptably reduce the overall expertise during reviews by -26%. We develop the Sofia recommender that suggests experts when none of the files under review are hoarded by developers, but distributes knowledge when files are at risk. In this way, we are able to simultaneously increase expertise during review with a ΔExpertise of 6%, with a negligible impact on workload of ΔCoreWorkload of 0.09%, and reduce the files at risk by ΔFaR -28%. Sofia is integrated into GitHub pull requests allowing developers to select an appropriate expert or "learner" based on the context of the review. We release the Sofia bot as well as the code and data for replication purposes.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers6
- Modeling Review History for Reviewer Recommendation: A Hypergraph ApproachGuoping Rong, Yifan Zhang, Lanxin Yang, Fuli Zhang et al.ICSE 2022 · 20 citations
- Is Historical Data an Appropriate Benchmark for Reviewer Recommendation Systems? : A Case Study of the Gerrit CommunityIan X. Gauthier, Maxime Lamothe, Gunter Mussbacher, Shane McIntoshASE 2021 · 17 citations
- Using nudges to accelerate code reviews at scaleQianhua Shan, David Sukhdeo, Qianying Huang, Seth Rogers et al.FSE 2022 · 17 citations
- LAURA: Enhancing Code Review Generation with Context-Enriched Retrieval-Augmented LLMYuxin Zhang, Yuxia Zhang, Zeyu Sun, Yanjie Jiang et al.ASE 2025 · 8 citations
- Systemic Gender Inequities in Who Reviews CodeEmerson R. Murphy-Hill, Jillian Dicker, Amber Horvath, Margaret Morrow Hodges et al.CSCW 2023 · 6 citations
Related papers
- The Cost vs the Benefit of Adding an Extra Code Reviewer to Mitigate Developer Turnover through Reviewer RecommendersMohammadali Sefidi Esfahani, Fahimeh Hajari, Peter C. RigbyICSE 2026
- Mitigating the Risk of Defects and Improving Knowledge Distribution with Code Reviewer RecommendersMohammadali Sefidi Esfahani, Peter C. RigbyFSE 2026
- CORMS: a GitHub and Gerrit based hybrid code reviewer recommendation approach for modern code reviewPrahar Pandya, Saurabh TiwariFSE 2022 · 21 citations
- How Does Core Contributor Disengagement Impact Open Source Project Activity? A Quasi-ExperimentYunqi Chen, Klaas-Jan Stol, Fabio Santos, Daniel M German et al.ICSE 2026
- Recommending Good First Issues in GitHub OSS ProjectsWenxin Xiao, Hao He, Weiwei Xu, Xin Tan et al.ICSE 2022 · 35 citations
