docs: add Gemini-3-pro-review benchmark results

[ofir-frd]

PR Type

Documentation

---

Description

• Add Gemini-3-pro-review benchmark results with high and low thinking budgets

• Insert two new table entries showing scores of 57.3 (high) and 55.6 (low)

• Add detailed performance analysis sections for both configurations

• Document strengths and weaknesses for each thinking budget level

---

Diagram Walkthrough

flowchart LR
  A["Benchmark Table"] -- "add entries" --> B["Gemini-3-pro-review scores"]
  B -- "high budget: 57.3" --> C["Detailed Analysis"]
  B -- "low budget: 55.6" --> C
  C -- "document" --> D["Strengths & Weaknesses"]

Loading

File Walkthrough

	Relevant files
Documentation	index.md Add Gemini-3-pro-review benchmark results and analysis      docs/docs/pr_benchmark/index.md Add two table rows for Gemini-3-pro-review model with high (57.3) and low (55.6) thinking budgets Insert comprehensive analysis sections documenting strengths and weaknesses for both configurations Position entries chronologically by date (2025-11-18) within existing benchmark rankings +46/-0

---

[qodo-merge-for-open-source]

PR Compliance Guide 🔍

(Compliance updated until commit edd9ef9)

Below is a summary of compliance checks for this PR:

Security Compliance
🟢	No security concerns identified No security vulnerabilities detected by AI analysis. Human verification advised for critical code.
Ticket Compliance
⚪	🎫 No ticket provided Create ticket/issue
Codebase Duplication Compliance
⚪	Codebase context is not defined Follow the guide to enable codebase context checks.
Custom Compliance
🟢	Consistent Naming Conventions Objective: All new variables, functions, and classes must follow the project's established naming standards Status: Passed
	No Dead or Commented-Out Code Objective: Keep the codebase clean by ensuring all submitted code is active and necessary Status: Passed
	Robust Error Handling Objective: Ensure potential errors and edge cases are anticipated and handled gracefully throughout the code Status: Passed
	Single Responsibility for Functions Objective: Each function should have a single, well-defined responsibility Status: Passed
	When relevant, utilize early return Objective: In a code snippet containing multiple logic conditions (such as 'if-else'), prefer an early return on edge cases than deep nesting Status: Passed

Compliance status legend

🟢 - Fully Compliant
🟡 - Partial Compliant
🔴 - Not Compliant
⚪ - Requires Further Human Verification
🏷️ - Compliance label

---

Previous compliance checks

Compliance check up to commit edd9ef9

Security Compliance
🟢	No security concerns identified No security vulnerabilities detected by AI analysis. Human verification advised for critical code.
Ticket Compliance
⚪	🎫 No ticket provided Create ticket/issue
Codebase Duplication Compliance
⚪	Codebase context is not defined Follow the guide to enable codebase context checks.
Custom Compliance
🟢	Consistent Naming Conventions Objective: All new variables, functions, and classes must follow the project's established naming standards Status: Passed
	No Dead or Commented-Out Code Objective: Keep the codebase clean by ensuring all submitted code is active and necessary Status: Passed
	Robust Error Handling Objective: Ensure potential errors and edge cases are anticipated and handled gracefully throughout the code Status: Passed
	Single Responsibility for Functions Objective: Each function should have a single, well-defined responsibility Status: Passed
	When relevant, utilize early return Objective: In a code snippet containing multiple logic conditions (such as 'if-else'), prefer an early return on edge cases than deep nesting Status: Passed

[qodo-merge-for-open-source]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
High-level	Consolidate nearly identical model analyses Consolidate the two nearly identical qualitative analyses for the "high" and "low" budget versions of Gemini-3-pro-review into a single section. This change would improve conciseness and focus on the model's core behaviors. Examples: docs/docs/pr_benchmark/index.md [233-248] ### Gemini-3-pro-review (high thinking budget) Final score: **57.3** Strengths: - **Good schema & format discipline:** Consistently returns well-formed YAML with correct fields and respects the 3-suggestion limit; rarely breaks the required output structure. - **Reasonable guideline awareness:** Often recognises when a diff contains only data / translations and properly emits an empty list, avoiding over-reporting. - **Clear, actionable patches when correct:** When it does find a bug it usually supplies minimal-diff, compilable code snippets with concise explanations, and occasionally surfaces issues no other model spotted. ... (clipped 6 lines) docs/docs/pr_benchmark/index.md [268-283] ### Gemini-3-pro-review (low thinking budget) Final score: **55.6** Strengths: - **Concise, well-structured patches:** Suggestions are usually expressed in short, self-contained YAML items with clear before/after code blocks and just enough rationale, making them easy for reviewers to apply. - **Good eye for crash-level defects:** When the model does spot a problem it often focuses on high-impact issues such as compile-time errors, NPEs, nil-pointer races, buffer overflows, etc., and supplies a minimal, correct fix. - **High guideline compliance (format & scope):** In most cases it respects the 1-3-item limit and the "new lines only" rule, avoids changing imports, and keeps snippets syntactically valid. ... (clipped 6 lines) Solution Walkthrough: Before: ### Gemini-3-pro-review (high thinking budget) Final score: **57.3** Strengths: - Good schema & format discipline... - Reasonable guideline awareness... Weaknesses: - Spot-coverage gaps on critical defects... - False or speculative fixes... - High variance / inconsistency... ... ### Gemini-3-pro-review (low thinking budget) Final score: **55.6** Strengths: - Concise, well-structured patches... - Good eye for crash-level defects... Weaknesses: - Coverage inconsistency... - False positives & speculative advice... - Quality variance / empty outputs... After: ### Gemini-3-pro-review Final scores: **57.3** (high budget), **55.6** (low budget) The model exhibits similar qualitative characteristics across both thinking budgets, with minor performance variations. Strengths: - **High format discipline:** Consistently returns well-formed YAML and respects output structure. - **Good defect detection:** Often finds high-impact bugs and provides clear, actionable patches. Weaknesses: - **Inconsistent coverage:** Often misses critical bugs found by peers, showing variance in review depth. - **False positives:** A noticeable number of suggestions are for non-existent problems or are speculative. - **High variance:** Overall quality swings significantly between examples. Suggestion importance[1-10]: 6 __ Why: The suggestion correctly identifies significant redundancy between the two new analysis sections, and consolidating them would improve the document's conciseness and readability without losing important information.	Low
General	Resolve contradiction in model evaluation Rephrase a 'Strength' to resolve an apparent contradiction with a 'Weakness' by removing specific claims and adding a reference to the weaknesses section for a more consistent model evaluation. docs/docs/pr_benchmark/index.md [276] -- **High guideline compliance (format & scope):** In most cases it respects the 1-3-item limit and the "new lines only" rule, avoids changing imports, and keeps snippets syntactically valid. +- **High guideline compliance (format & scope):** In most cases it respects the 1-3 item limit and keeps snippets syntactically valid, though some rule violations are noted in the weaknesses. Apply / Chat Suggestion importance[1-10]: 5 __ Why: The suggestion correctly identifies a tension between the 'Strengths' and 'Weaknesses' sections and proposes a good rewording to improve the document's clarity and internal consistency.	Low
More

• Author self-review: I have reviewed the PR code suggestions, and addressed the relevant ones.