At Proofline (https://proofline.sh/), question we’re trying to understand is how much code review costs teams today.
On one hand, how steep is the actual bill for review tools. On the other, how much time developers spend reading changes, following up on comments, and getting back into context after a pull request has been sitting for a day.
From the founder side, it’s easy to assume that more code means more review pain. But maybe that's not everybody's experience.
A few questions for people reviewing code regularly:
- Are you spending more time on reviews than you were a year ago?
- If you use an AI review tool, does it save time once you account for checking its comments?
- What feels most expensive: the tools, reviewer time, or waiting for approval?
I’d especially like to hear a recent example of a review that took more effort than you expected—and what made it difficult.
Top comments (1)
For me, a big part of that cost is scope creep in the change itself. Surgical changes only, in my briefs: touch exactly what the task names, nothing adjacent. Every 'while I was in there' improvement I've allowed has cost me a Sunday of untangling. If the neighbouring thing matters, it gets its own task and its own record.