A 2,000-line Pull Request lands in your review queue on a Thursday afternoon, touching a dozen files spread across three different parts of the application. Everyone knows what happens next. You either give it an LGTM while hoping for the best, or you block two hours of your day, completely breaking your own flow, just to understand the changes.
This is not an exception, it is usually routine for the team. Large PRs slow the team down, increase the risk of errors slipping through, and make the delivery cycle less predictable. The problem is not just the code inside the PR, it is the time it ties up people, decisions, and deploys throughout the entire process.
The weight of large changes
Large pull requests create bottlenecks that spill outward. The most immediate impact falls on the reviewer, who now faces massive context switching. A change of this size requires not only reading the code, but reconstructing the entire mental model of the person who wrote it. This cognitive load makes it tempting to postpone the review, leaving the PR sitting idle for days while the author’s own context starts to fade. When the review finally happens, the feedback is usually less detailed, because the reviewer is just trying to understand the architecture at a high level instead of identifying logic flaws.
This delay creates cascading effects. While the large PR waits for review, the main branch keeps moving forward, making merge conflicts almost inevitable. The longer a branch stays open, the more it diverges and the harder final integration becomes. Dependent work gets blocked, and if a fundamental design issue is found during this late review, the rework cost is huge. A problem discovered days after the code was written is much more expensive to fix than one caught in minutes. The entire process slows down, and the team’s predictability suffers.
Why small PRs make a difference in the team’s process
Moving to smaller, more frequent pull requests tackles these bottlenecks directly. When a review is limited to something around a hundred lines, it can be done in minutes, often between other tasks, without a major context switch. The cognitive load is low, which encourages reviewers to engage quickly and provide more focused and constructive feedback. The author gets this feedback while the code is still fresh in their mind, allowing for fast iterations. This creates a short cycle of coding, review, and integration that keeps work flowing continuously.
The benefits compound over time. Small, incremental changes are easier to validate and, if needed, to roll back. The blast radius of any potential issue stays contained within a small, understandable unit of work. Instead of a monolithic, high-risk merge once a week, you end up with a steady flow of low-risk changes reaching production every day. This continuous progress is great for team morale and makes it easier to course-correct if a feature is heading in the wrong direction. The team moves from a batch-processing model to a real-time flow.
Main reasons to do small PRs
1. Faster and more accurate reviews
When the scope of a Pull Request is small, the reviewer can focus on the details that really matter. This not only speeds up the review but also increases the quality of the feedback. Issues are detected earlier and with greater clarity.
2. Faster feedback
Smaller PRs make life easier for everyone. Reviewers can respond more quickly, and those waiting for feedback can move forward with less idle time. This speed is essential to keeping productivity high.
3. Reduced conflicts
Each small PR is processed quickly, which reduces the chances of conflicts with other code changes. That means less rework and more focus on what really matters: creating value for the product.
4. Clearer intent
When you limit the scope of a PR, it becomes much easier for everyone to understand what is being solved. This not only improves communication within the team, but also makes the project history more organized and traceable.
5. Higher deploy frequency
With small Pull Requests, it becomes possible to do smaller, more frequent deploys. That means features and fixes reach users faster, while the risk of something breaking in production goes down.
Read also: How to improve PR quality
Building a culture of small Pull Requests
Breaking work into smaller parts
It is not enough to tell people “make smaller PRs”. You need to offer techniques for slicing work into independent, mergeable pieces.
- Implement feature toggles for incomplete functionality. This is the most powerful tool for decoupling deploy from release. It allows incremental merging of the code for a larger feature, even when it is not yet ready for users. Each part can be reviewed and tested in isolation behind a flag.
- Prioritize refactoring as a distinct, isolated change. Avoid mixing refactoring with feature delivery in the same PR. When a change only touches structure, it is much easier to review. When it mixes code reorganization with new behavior, the review becomes confusing and risky. Clean up first, merge it, and only then build the feature on top of a clearer base.
- Slice user stories vertically into minimal viable increments. Instead of building an entire feature horizontally (backend, then frontend, then API), find the smallest possible vertical slice that delivers a bit of value to the user. Maybe the first PR only adds the API endpoint with a hardcoded response. The next adds the database schema. The following one connects the two. Each step is a small, verifiable improvement.
Team agreements and practices for Pull Requests
Consistency comes from shared expectations. The team needs to have explicit conversations about what a “good” PR looks like.
- Set guidelines for acceptable size and complexity. Some teams use lines of code as a rough proxy (for example, under 250 lines), while others look at the number of files touched or the conceptual weight of the change. The exact number matters less than having a shared understanding.
- Define clear expectations for review turnaround times. Agree on a target response time for reviews, such as a few business hours. This prevents PRs from being forgotten in the queue and signals that reviewing is a priority responsibility for everyone on the team.
- Use tools to identify and flag exceptionally large Pull Requests. Many CI/CD platforms and Git tools can be configured to automatically mark PRs that exceed a certain size threshold. This works as a gentle, automatic reminder of team agreements, without making the conversation confrontational.
Measuring the impact on delivery flow
To know whether the change is working, you need to measure. Adding flow metrics can provide clear evidence of improvement and help justify the investment in this practice.
Track Lead Time for Changes. This metric measures the time between the first commit on a branch and the code running in production. Smaller PRs tend to reduce this number directly by shortening review and integration stages.
Monitor Code Review Cycle Time. How long does a PR sit waiting for review or iteration? This metric helps surface process bottlenecks and should drop as PRs get smaller and more focused.
Watch for a reduction in merge conflict frequency and defect rates. With shorter branches and smaller changes, conflicts tend to decrease. The faster feedback cycle also helps catch bugs earlier, reducing the rate of defects that get reintroduced or make it to production.
At the end of the day
Creating smaller PRs is about building a more efficient and sustainable workflow. It is not something that happens overnight, but over time these practices become part of the team’s culture and make all the difference.
Top comments (1)
This explains the problem with large PRs really well.
I’ve seen the same thing happen — big PRs sit longer, reviews get rushed, and important details slip through.
Smaller PRs make it easier to review quickly, give better feedback, and keep everyone moving without breaking focus.
Breaking work into vertical slices and separating refactors from features especially stood out to me.
Great write-up — very practical and easy to relate to.