When we think about code reviews, it’s easy to see them as just another step in the software development process. But here’s the thing: they’re not just a gatekeeping mechanism—they’re an opportunity to level up your team’s skill set, reinforce best practices, and foster collaboration that can transform the way you build software together.
So, let me break down some best practices for code reviews.
1. Set the Right Tone
I’ve seen teams where code reviews feel like going to court—defensive, rigid, and stressful. This mindset kills creativity and stifles growth. What works better? Making reviews a collaborative discussion. Instead of “You missed this” or “Why didn’t you do that?”, switch to “What do you think about this?” or “Have you considered trying X?”. The language we use matters a lot.
2. Create a Review Culture Based on Trust
Trust isn’t built overnight. If developers feel safe putting their code up for review, knowing their peers have their back and aren’t out to nitpick, they’ll be more open to feedback. Encourage your team to highlight positives in reviews as much as they point out areas for improvement. A simple “I like how you’ve handled this edge case” can go a long way in making someone feel seen and appreciated.
3. Establish Clear Guidelines (But Keep Them Flexible)
Having a set of shared guidelines helps keep reviews consistent. Whether it’s adhering to a coding style, architectural decisions, or how to approach documentation—clarity is key. But don’t let this become a rigid set of rules. The goal is to empower, not restrict. When guidelines adapt to what’s practical for the team, you’re on the right track.
4. Keep Reviews Manageable
Nobody wants to review a 5,000-line PR—it’s overwhelming and counterproductive. Encourage small, frequent pull requests so that reviews are more focused and less intimidating. This also accelerates feedback loops, keeps the context fresh, and avoids cognitive overload for the reviewer. The outcome? Quicker iterations and a team that’s less likely to burn out on the process.
5. Automate the Mundane, Humanize the Rest
If your code reviews are bogged down by trivial feedback (“fix the indent,” “missing semicolon”), you’re not using your tools effectively. Automation tools like ESLint, Prettier, and CI/CD pipelines can handle style checks, syntax rules, and even basic tests before a human ever looks at the code. This way, the review can focus on logic, structure, and design—the things that actually require a human touch.
6. Normalize Questions and Discussions
One of the biggest blockers to learning-focused reviews is the stigma around asking questions. No one wants to look uninformed, right? But reviews are the perfect time to ask and discuss—“Can you walk me through why you chose this approach?” or “What would be the implications if we did it this way instead?” These questions encourage deeper understanding for both the reviewer and the author.
7. Use Reviews as a Mentorship Tool
If you’re a senior developer, your reviews can double as mentorship. It’s not just about catching mistakes; it’s about elevating the whole team. Point out alternatives, share relevant articles or resources, and take the time to explain more complex feedback. This doesn’t mean overloading every PR with essays, but it does mean being intentional about when and how you share your knowledge.
8. Feedback Should Be Actionable, Not Vague
Nothing kills the review process more than vague feedback. “Refactor this” or “This feels off” is frustrating for the author, trust me. Be specific: “Consider extracting this logic into a helper function for better readability” or “This could be simplified using [method].” Specific feedback helps the author take immediate, meaningful action and learn why a change is beneficial.
9. Review Together When It Makes Sense
Pair programming and live review sessions might not be feasible for every team, but when possible, they’re invaluable. Real-time collaboration allows for immediate feedback, shared context, and quicker resolution of doubts. It’s also a great way to build stronger connections within the team.
10. Celebrate the Wins
This is so underrated IMO. Did someone take your feedback and improve their code dramatically? Mention it in a team meeting. Did a tricky PR get through without any major changes needed? High-five the author. It's that simple.
Celebrating these moments reinforces a positive, growth-oriented review culture.
Share your thoughts—I’d love to hear what’s working (or not) in your team.
Top comments (10)
Thank you so much for the helpful information! I’d also like to recommend EchoAPI for teamwork collaboration. Good documentation is essential, and EchoAPI simplifies the process, making it much easier for my team to work together effectively.
That sounds really good! Thanks for sharing.
Nice words, but still a bit removed from reality! 😅
I believe that AI will soon play a bigger role in code reviews, serving as a valuable first step. And eventually, who knows—it may even reach the point of writing production-ready code that meets best practices standards.
I get the skepticism—AI in code reviews still has some proving to do. But it’s already pulling its weight by catching issues and cleaning up code, making life easier for devs.
Will it reach the level of writing production-ready code? It’s possible. We’re not there yet, but with the pace of improvement, AI could soon be more than just a helper—it might actually raise the bar for code quality across the board.
Already done😏
I am a new project manager. Who initiates the code review and who reviews it? Trying to learn the workflow of who, why, when for code reviews. Is this before QA or just like a random audit?
For a new project manager, here’s the gist:
Code reviews usually depend on the team setup. In agile, each dev does a pull request (PR) at the end of their day, which triggers a review by a randomly assigned teammate through work management software. This approach speeds things up but sometimes lets sloppy habits slip through.
Typically, QA is the final check before release, but code reviews can catch issues early on. In more traditional (waterfall) settings, reviews happen before QA and might involve the whole team in longer sessions, especially for bigger changes.
Hope that clarifies! :)
Depends on your team structure and many situations can be more art than science.
My most recent approach in an agile team has been PRs at least once a day by every dev when checking in their day's work on a story, feature, or enabler. The system assigns another team member at random to each through work mgmt software.
Using the PRs as the review process is somewhat faster but also can let people "hide" bad habits longer.
In my experience, any "QA" is always the last gate before delivery. The goal is that QA doesn't have anything to say - it's abused too much with shoddy, unfinished work too often though. If that's the case, you're far from alone, so you may want to have QA bundled in with code reviews.
When doing more waterfall or Wagile style, code review was before QA but more formally with all devs together. Could be a full day or multi-day event if the base is big enough, but usually it's a 1-2 hour thing for minor versions or operational support work.
This is so helpful! Thank you for sharing.
Glad you found it helpful!