On Code Reviews

Code reviews are a cornerstone of software engineering, but let’s face it—they often feel like a bottleneck. Pipelines sit blocked, waiting for approvals, while engineers juggle their own tasks and the mental load of reviewing. The cost of context switching between writing and reviewing code is high, and over time, the process can degrade into a rote, uninspired checkbox exercise: “LGTM” and move on.

But code reviews are not supposed to be obstacles. They’re meant to safeguard quality, foster learning, and ensure that teams ship better software. If they’re not achieving that, it’s time to step back and ask: how can we make reviews more meaningful?

The answer? Review the reviewer.

The Challenge of Code Reviews

Unlike writers, who have professional editors, engineers rely on each other to catch mistakes, ensure quality, and uphold standards. Without clear guidance or accountability, this collaboration can slip into patterns of inefficiency:

• Surface-level reviews: A quick skim, a nit-pick here or there, and an “approve” to unblock the pipeline.
• Overly collaborative but unaligned goals: Reviewers prioritize speed over rigor, or focus on irrelevant details to signal thoroughness.
• Bias toward the existing solution: Without understanding the problem beforehand, reviewers can be unconsciously swayed by what’s already written.

These issues don’t just slow things down—they erode the very purpose of the process.

A Framework for Better Code Reviews

Effective code reviews require a structured approach. Reviewers should understand the problem before diving into the solution and evaluate the code from multiple perspectives:

1. Understand the Problem:
2. Perform a High-Level Integration Review:
3. Assess Structural Consistency:
4. Evaluate Logic and Comprehension:
5. Test the Code:
6. Check Documentation:

Automated tools can handle formatting and syntax checks, but an engineer’s insight is critical for style, logic, and comprehension.

The Role of the Review Reviewer

Leaders and senior engineers should periodically review the reviewers. This isn’t micromanagement—it’s about coaching the team to improve their reviews and ensuring the process serves its purpose. Here’s what to look for when reviewing the reviewer:

• Depth of Review: Did the reviewer demonstrate an understanding of the problem before critiquing the solution?
• Prioritization: Were their comments focused on impactful issues rather than trivial ones?
• Evidence of Validation: Did the reviewer verify the code in a local environment?
• Constructive Feedback: Did their comments provide actionable, thoughtful guidance to the author?

By participating in reviews and modeling best practices, leaders set the tone for the team. This not only unblocks the pipeline but also fosters a culture of growth and collaboration.

Building a Meaningful Review Culture

When leaders take an active role in reviewing code—and the reviewers—they create opportunities to:

• Unblock the Team: Help ease bottlenecks by jumping into the trenches when necessary.
• Set Standards: Demonstrate what a thorough, impactful review looks like.
• Foster Growth: Use the process to teach reviewers how to prioritize and provide constructive feedback.
• Gain Insights: Understand team dynamics and uncover inefficiencies in the workflow.

Code reviews should never devolve into mindless box-checking. They are opportunities to align the team around quality, learning, and efficiency. By reviewing the reviewers, leaders ensure that the process remains meaningful and effective, setting the foundation for a stronger, more cohesive team.

The Takeaway

Code reviews are more than a formality—they’re an essential part of delivering quality software and fostering team collaboration. But they only work when done well. Leaders must step in to guide the process, coach their teams, and ensure reviews serve their purpose. After all, a strong culture of meaningful code reviews isn’t just about catching bugs—it’s about building better engineers and better products.