To enable your team to perform effective code reviews, you must first address a key question: what is the goal of code reviews in your project and team? You also need to decide how adaptive the procedure should be. There are scientific benefits to code reviews, but I’m not here to claim they work or are necessary. I’m here to offer my experience after having thousands of code review.
For my team, the goal of code reviews is to promote code consistency, give mentorship opportunities for new devs, and serve as documentation for decision-making.
What do you hope to achieve through code reviews in your team?
Automate Code Reviews
Regardless of approach, everyone should automate code reviews to some extent. Automation can be used in two ways. The first approach involves employing static, rule-based style checkers. There has always been a method to include this, regardless of the technology stack I’ve worked with. Automation can save you a lot of time and effort. A large number of code norms can be enforced with style checks, decreasing the requirement for human intervention. After all, it would be frustrating to remind a colleague to use lower camel case for local variables.
The second step is incorporating AI, but you need to be cautious with this approach. At the moment, AI-powered code review tools tend to generate too many unnecessary comments. To make the most of AI, establish clear rules and align them with your team’s values to minimize irrelevant feedback. Since AI excels at pattern matching, it can help catch bugs early in the development process. Instead of resisting technological advancements, leverage them to your advantage.
Everyone Should Participate to Code Reviews
Depending on your team size and budget, aim to have at least two code reviewers per pull request (PR). The first reviewer doesn’t need to be highly experienced but should have a solid understanding of the project. The second reviewer should be more experienced. Regardless of this structure, code reviews should remain classless, without any hierarchy.
Once a PR is created, it becomes everyone’s code. It doesn’t belong to any individual—it belongs to the team.
Developers should merge their code after receiving two approvals. It’s crucial for everyone to participate in the code review process. Developers can’t learn everything solely through writing code; some knowledge needs to be shared through other channels.
Use code reviews as an opportunity to teach and learn.
Accept Good Approaches
Almost any problem can be solved in a thousand different ways. Your way doesn’t always have to be the outcome of a code review. If the proposed approach is good enough, stick with it unless you identify a critical issue.
Forcing a developer to change their approach unnecessarily can be demotivating. If they don’t clearly see the reasoning behind the change, it may even feel personal.
Focus on improving the solution without altering a good enough approach!
Provide Quick Code Reviews
Be quick with feedback. If a pull request (PR) is too large, consider providing partial reviews—for example, focusing only on the data layer implementation. Developers lose motivation if they receive feedback two weeks later; by then, they may not even remember their design decisions.
Establishing a fast and consistent feedback loop during code reviews is essential for maintaining team trust.
Embrace the Push Back
If your goal is to improve the maintainability of the codebase, don’t take pushback personally. You may be wrong more often than you think. The developer who created the PR is likely the most knowledgeable about the task and its possible solutions. Stay humble if they challenge your feedback.
Of course, conflicts can arise. Sometimes, you may deal with “strong” personalities, or a teammate might be having a bad day. In such cases, you should be able to say, “Maybe I’m fixated on my approach, but I respectfully disagree with you, so I’d like to bring in a third person for their perspective.” Often, this alone helps de-escalate the situation. However, don’t use it as a bargaining chip—genuinely involve another senior developer and respect their decision.
Toxic personalities exist, but if someone is part of your team, never let disagreements go beyond technical discussions. If conflicts persist, bring in a mediator. If the same issues keep repeating, escalate the matter to your project manager or scrum master. Not everyone is meant to work together, and it’s crucial to address recurring conflicts professionally.
Key Points
- Automate code reviews to reduce manual work and enforce consistency.
- Encourage multiple reviewers while maintaining a hierarchy-free process.
- Treat code as a shared team asset, not individual property.
- Use code reviews as a teaching tool to foster learning and mentorship.
- Accept solutions as long as they are good enough.
- Prioritize quick feedback to keep developers engaged and motivated.
- Embrace constructive pushback and remain open to different perspectives.
- Handle conflicts professionally, and involve a third party when necessary.
