Code Review Best Practices
“Code Review is not just about finding bugs — it’s about learning, growing, and building better software together.”
Why Do Code Reviews?
Code reviews are not just for catching bugs. They improve code quality, promote knowledge sharing, reduce technical debt, enforce coding standards, and foster a strong engineering culture within the team.
1. Fundamental Principles
✅ 1. People First – Be Kind and Respectful
- Review the code, not the person — never make it personal.
- Use suggestive and collaborative language, such as:
- “Maybe we could write this in a clearer way?”
- “Have we considered the case when xxx happens?”
✅ 2. Stay Goal-Oriented
- Focus: Code correctness > performance > structure > style.
- Don’t get stuck on personal preferences — follow team conventions.
✅ 3. Small Changes, Small Reviews
- Avoid submitting massive changes all at once.
- Ideal PR size: under 200 lines is best (Google’s recommendation), never exceed 400 lines.
2. Suggested Code Review Process
🧠 Author’s Responsibilities:
- Self-review first: Run linters and tests before submission.
- Write a clear PR description: Explain the motivation, context, and key changes.
- Organize commits logically: Group by feature or purpose.
- Highlight critical parts: Use comments to guide reviewers to important areas.
👀 Reviewer’s Responsibilities:
- Read the PR description and any related documentation.
- Review across multiple levels:
- Does it meet the functional/requirement goals?
- Are there obvious bugs or unhandled edge cases?
- Is the code readable and maintainable?
- Does it disrupt existing structure? Introduce duplication?
- Are tests covering key logic?
- Provide constructive feedback:
- Point out issues, but suggestions are even better.
- Approve if acceptable, or request changes if not.
3. Coding Style Recommendations
- Follow project conventions (e.g.,
gofmt,eslint,clang-format). - Use clear, descriptive names — avoid abbreviations.
- Avoid magic numbers, copy-pasted code, and long functions.
- Use comments appropriately — they should complement clean code, not replace it.
4. Common Code Review Pitfalls
| ❌ Pitfall | ✅ Better Practice |
|---|---|
| Over-focusing on minor style issues | Let linters handle style; reviewers focus on logic |
| Submitting massive PRs | Break them down — one problem or feature per PR |
| Reviewer gives feedback without context | Read the PR description and related docs first |
| Harsh or vague comments | Be polite and provide concrete suggestions |
| Ignoring tests or edge cases | Review boundary conditions, error handling, and test coverage |
5. Recommended Tools
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
| GitHub/GitLab PR/MR | Mainstream code review platforms |
| ReviewDog / Danger | CI-integrated review automation |
| pre-commit / husky | Pre-submit format and lint checks |
| Codecov / Coveralls | Test coverage analysis |
| SonarQube | Static analysis & code quality |
6. Summary
Efficient code reviews are not just about catching issues—they’re about improving team collaboration and code quality. With a positive and constructive review culture, team members learn from each other and grow together. Remember:
🔁 “Code review is an ongoing conversation — not a debate.”