Code Reviews in Growing teams

As teams grow, so does the surface area of code reviews—and the friction.

What starts as constructive collaboration often devolves into low-value comments, nitpicking, or opinionated back-and-forths that delay progress and breed frustration. And most of it stems from one issue:

Too many code reviews are about personal preferences, not shared standards.

Having seen code reviews in many variations – from small to massive teams, organisations with standards and companies with the wild-west code culture – below I write on what I think the code reviews should look like at any organisation with more then 2 developers.

---

✅ The Purpose of Code Review Isn’t Aesthetic Harmony

Let’s get this out of the way: your job in a code review is not to make the code look like you wrote it. When working with tens o r hundreds of engineers – this is not feasible. Your job is to:

• Ensure correctness
• Spot edge cases and security holes
• Keep the code understandable and maintainable
• Protect the team from tech debt or future surprises
• Align with agreed-upon patterns and standards

Personal preferences—like single vs. double quotes, file order, variable naming conventions—should already be enforced by linters or conventions, not by humans on every PR.

If you find most of your comments on PRs are about style – it’s time to invest in a linter.

---

🧭 Preference vs. Principle: Know the Difference

Example:

❌ “I prefer to name this variable x instead of count.”
✅ “We usually name this count to stay consistent with our analytics events schema.”

The first is subjective. The second cites a shared standard.
If it’s not grounded in an explicit team decision, it probably shouldn’t block the PR.

If it’s not yet a standard – but you think it should be – bring this up on your next sync.

---

🛠 Tools Handle the Mechanical, People Handle the Meaningful

If your code review feedback mostly covers formatting, rename suggestions, or how braces are aligned—it’s time to invest in automation:

• Prettier / ESLint / Pint / Rector / Rubocop / Clippy (pick your stack) should eliminate 90% of bike-shedding.
• Set up pre-commit hooks and CI checks to enforce this before code review even starts.

Code review time is expensive. Use it for architecture, logic, edge cases, and the stuff only humans catch.

---

🧱 Commenting Guidelines

Here’s a list of internal norms I’ve seen help reviews stay high-value and well-toned:

• If it’s a preference, don’t block. Use “nit:” or “optional:” to indicate tone.
• If it violates a standard, link to the standard.
• If you’re not sure, ask a question instead of making a demand. e.g. “Curious if you considered X here—would that simplify things?”

Always encourage responding with reasons, not reactions:

Instead of “I disagree,” say “I’m worried this could make retries harder. What do you think about…?”

---

📚 Reviewers: You’re Not the Boss. You’re the Second Set of Eyes.

One of the biggest mindset shifts: you’re not managing the PR—you’re collaborating on it.

Engineers are expected to make decisions and defend them. That means:

• If someone’s approach is valid but different from yours, that’s okay.
• If it works, is safe, and aligns with company standards—ship it.

The best reviews respect ownership. Don’t rewrite their code—strengthen it.

---

🙌 Authors: Own the Quality, Don’t Outsource It

This isn’t one-sided. As a PR author, your job is to:

• Write clear, well-scoped PRs with context (why this change matters)
• Flag anything that’s fragile, temporary, or experimental
• Review your own code before requesting review – Thank me later

Don’t use your reviewers as a safety net. Use them as a force multiplier.

---

🧩 One Team, One Voice

Every comment in a code review shapes culture. If your reviews are full of “I prefer…” or “we always do it this way…” without a shared baseline, the result is inconsistent, confusing, and political.

Instead:

• Build a strong foundation of standards
• Automate the boring stuff
• Focus your human time on the things that actually matter
• And leave your preferences at the door.

---

👴 Seniors: Be Humble, Stay Open

Code reviews aren’t just for junior engineers to learn or get checked—they’re an essential tool for everyone, no matter how senior you are.

Sometimes, senior devs fall into the trap of assuming their code is above critique or that reviews are just formalities. But:

• Openness to feedback keeps your skills sharp and prevents blind spots.
• It models humility and continuous learning for the whole team.
• Fresh perspectives—even from juniors—can catch issues or suggest simpler solutions you might have missed.
• It fosters psychological safety, showing the team that everyone’s code is on the table.

Remember, the goal isn’t to prove you’re right—it’s to build better software together.

---

✍️ Bonus: My Review Checklist

• Business logic is correct and clearly readable
• Introduces no unnecessary coupling or duplication
• Follows naming and directory structure conventions
• Leaves things better than it found them (if touched)