Code review is a key quality checkpoint between AI-generated code and production. As AI coding agents submit pull requests at scale, it is unclear whether reviewers reduce scrutiny with repeated exposure and whether review comments reveal this change. We study 11,429 reviews from 400 repeat reviewers over 207 days, paired with 10,104 human-authored inline comments from AIDev. Approval rates rise from 30.5% in reviewers' early periods to 36.6% in late periods (Wilcoxon p = 8.6 x 10^-8; Cohen's d = 0.25). However, four hand-crafted linguistic features - lexical diversity, Shannon entropy, technical specificity, and constructive actionability - show no monotonic decline across exposure deciles (all Spearman absolute rho <= 0.53, p >= 0.11; Bonferroni-corrected Mann-Whitney p >= 0.36). A logistic-regression classifier based on these features reaches F1 = 0.485, below the majority-class baseline. Sentence-embedding structure does carry signal: reviewers' late-period comment centroids shift farther from their early-period centroids than under within-reviewer random permutations (Wilcoxon p < 0.001), and a small MLP using three embedding statistics reaches F1 = 0.74 under 5-fold reviewer-stratified cross-validation. Granger analysis shows that approval-rate changes predict later shifts in technical specificity at all tested lags (p < 0.001), while the reverse direction is significant at only one of four lags. Reviewer adaptation is therefore detectable in latent distributional structure rather than in classical lexical metrics, and language shifts follow rather than precede changes in approval behavior.

翻译：暂无翻译