Effective Code Reviews | 30-60 Min Quality Checks
Run 30-60 minute code reviews that catch bugs and spread knowledge. GitScrum links PRs to tasks, tracks review time, and balances load across team members.
6 min read
Code reviews can be a bottleneck or a force multiplier. Effective reviews improve code quality, spread knowledge, and catch bugs early. Poor reviews create friction, delay work, and damage team morale. GitScrum integrates with GitHub/GitLab to make reviews visible and efficient.
Code Review Goals
| Goal | How to Achieve |
|---|---|
| Find bugs | Focus on logic, edge cases |
| Spread knowledge | Review across specialties |
| Improve design | Discuss architecture |
| Maintain standards | Consistent style, patterns |
| Mentor | Explain reasoning |
Review Process
Submission Best Practices
PR AUTHOR CHECKLIST
═══════════════════
BEFORE SUBMITTING:
- [ ] Self-reviewed the diff
- [ ] Tests pass locally
- [ ] Linter passes
- [ ] No debug code left
- [ ] Description explains why
GOOD PR DESCRIPTION:
─────────────────────────────────────
## What
Brief description of the change.
## Why
Context and motivation.
## How
Technical approach taken.
## Testing
How this was verified.
## Screenshots (if UI)
Before/after if applicable.
## Related
Links to GitScrum task, docs, etc.
─────────────────────────────────────
PR Size Guidelines
PR SIZE RECOMMENDATIONS
═══════════════════════
IDEAL: 50-200 lines changed
ACCEPTABLE: 200-400 lines changed
TOO LARGE: 400+ lines changed
WHY SMALL PRs:
├── Easier to review thoroughly
├── Faster turnaround
├── Less risk per change
├── Simpler to revert
└── Better knowledge transfer
SPLITTING STRATEGIES:
├── Feature flags for partial work
├── Extract refactoring separately
├── Separate tests from implementation
├── Infrastructure vs logic
└── Backend vs frontend
Reviewer Process
REVIEW WORKFLOW
═══════════════
PHASE 1: UNDERSTAND (5 min)
├── Read PR description
├── Check linked task context
├── Understand the goal
└── Review test plan
PHASE 2: HIGH-LEVEL (10 min)
├── Is the approach right?
├── Any architectural concerns?
├── Missing components?
└── Correct scope?
PHASE 3: DETAILED (15-30 min)
├── Logic correctness
├── Edge cases handled
├── Error handling
├── Performance implications
├── Security considerations
└── Test coverage
PHASE 4: RESPOND (5 min)
├── Organize feedback
├── Prioritize comments
├── Approve, request changes, or comment
└── Be responsive to questions
Feedback Framework
Comment Types
COMMENT CLASSIFICATION
══════════════════════
BLOCKING (must fix):
├── Bugs and logic errors
├── Security vulnerabilities
├── Missing critical tests
├── Breaking changes
└── Violates core patterns
NON-BLOCKING (should consider):
├── Performance suggestions
├── Alternative approaches
├── Minor improvements
├── Style preferences (beyond linter)
└── Nice-to-haves
PRAISE (important!):
├── Clever solutions
├── Good test coverage
├── Clean refactoring
├── Good documentation
└── Learning moments
FORMAT:
─────────────────────────────────────
[blocking] This will fail if user is null
[nit] Consider renaming to `isValidUser`
[praise] Great handling of the edge case!
─────────────────────────────────────
Constructive Feedback
FEEDBACK EXAMPLES
═════════════════
INSTEAD OF: TRY:
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
"This is wrong" "This might cause X
because Y. Consider Z."
"Why didn't you...?" "Would it help to...?"
"This is confusing" "I'm having trouble
following this. Could
you add a comment or
rename to clarify?"
"This is slow" "This will run N times.
Consider memoizing."
"Don't do it this way" "The team pattern for
this is X. Here's an
example: [link]"
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
What to Focus On
REVIEW PRIORITY
═══════════════
HIGH PRIORITY:
├── Correctness (does it work?)
├── Security (is it safe?)
├── Tests (is it verified?)
├── Edge cases (is it complete?)
└── Breaking changes (is it compatible?)
MEDIUM PRIORITY:
├── Performance (is it efficient?)
├── Readability (is it clear?)
├── Error handling (is it robust?)
├── Documentation (is it explained?)
└── Architecture (does it fit?)
LOW PRIORITY (often linter's job):
├── Formatting
├── Naming conventions
├── Import order
├── Line length
└── Trivial style choices
Review Culture
Team Norms
CODE REVIEW NORMS
═════════════════
TIMING:
├── Reviews happen within 4 hours
├── Interrupt work for reviews
├── Reviews before new work
└── No PRs over the weekend
PARTICIPATION:
├── Everyone reviews (not just seniors)
├── Rotate reviewers
├── Cross-team reviews for context
└── At least 2 reviewers for critical paths
ATTITUDE:
├── Assume good intent
├── Be humble (you might be wrong)
├── Separate ego from code
├── Thank reviewers
└── Learn from feedback
Reducing Friction
REDUCING REVIEW FRICTION
════════════════════════
AUTHOR CAN:
├── Keep PRs small
├── Write good descriptions
├── Self-review first
├── Respond quickly to feedback
└── Don't take it personally
REVIEWER CAN:
├── Review promptly
├── Be specific and actionable
├── Distinguish blocking vs nit
├── Offer solutions, not just problems
└── Approve when "good enough"
TEAM CAN:
├── Automate style checks
├── Document patterns
├── Review guidelines
├── Celebrate good reviews
└── Track review metrics
GitScrum Integration
Visibility
REVIEW VISIBILITY IN GITSCRUM
═════════════════════════════
TASK CARD SHOWS:
├── Linked PR(s)
├── Review status
├── CI status
├── Reviewers assigned
└── Time in review
BOARD COLUMN:
├── "In Review" column
├── Cards auto-move when PR opens
├── Auto-move on merge
└── Visible review queue
DASHBOARD:
├── Open PRs needing review
├── Average review time
├── Review load per person
└── Stale PRs flagged
Best Practices
For Effective Reviews
Anti-Patterns
CODE REVIEW ANTI-PATTERNS:
✗ "LGTM" with no actual review
✗ Multi-day review latency
✗ Focusing on style over substance
✗ Demanding rewrites for preferences
✗ Only senior devs reviewing
✗ No positive feedback ever
✗ Blocking for trivial reasons