Technical Design Reviews | Catch Issues Early
Design reviews prevent costly architectural mistakes. GitScrum structures async reviews with 2-3 days for feedback plus 30-60 minute sync for resolution.
6 min read
Technical design reviews prevent costly architectural mistakes but can become bottlenecks if not managed well. GitScrum's task workflows, checklist features, and collaboration tools help teams structure design review processes that catch issues early while maintaining development velocity.
Design Review Triggers
| Change Type | Review Required | Depth |
|---|---|---|
| New service/component | Yes | Full design doc |
| API changes (public) | Yes | API review |
| Database schema change | Yes | Schema review |
| > 2 weeks of work | Yes | Full design doc |
| Cross-team dependency | Yes | Coordination review |
| < 2 days, isolated | No | Code review sufficient |
Design Review Process
DESIGN REVIEW WORKFLOW
1. AUTHOR CREATES DESIGN DOCUMENT
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Template Sections: │
│ ├── Problem Statement │
│ ├── Goals & Non-Goals │
│ ├── Proposed Solution │
│ ├── Alternatives Considered │
│ ├── API/Data Contract │
│ ├── Dependencies │
│ ├── Security Considerations │
│ ├── Testing Strategy │
│ ├── Rollout Plan │
│ └── Success Metrics │
│ │
│ Time: 1-3 days to write │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
│
▼
2. ASYNC REVIEW PERIOD
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Share with reviewers: │
│ ├── Tech lead/architect │
│ ├── Team members │
│ ├── Dependent teams (if applicable) │
│ └── Security (if applicable) │
│ │
│ Reviewers provide written feedback │
│ Author responds to comments │
│ Time: 2-3 days │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
│
▼
3. SYNC REVIEW MEETING (if needed)
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Purpose: Resolve open questions only │
│ Not for reading the doc together │
│ │
│ Agenda: │
│ ├── 5 min: Recap open questions │
│ ├── 20-40 min: Discuss and decide │
│ └── 5 min: Capture decisions │
│ │
│ Time: 30-60 minutes max │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
│
▼
4. DECISION AND APPROVAL
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Outcomes: │
│ ├── Approved: Proceed with implementation │
│ ├── Approved with changes: Minor updates │
│ └── Needs revision: Major rework needed │
│ │
│ Record decision and rationale │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Design Document Template
TECHNICAL DESIGN DOCUMENT
# [Feature/System Name] Design
## Status: [Draft | In Review | Approved | Superseded]
## Author: @author
## Reviewers: @reviewer1, @reviewer2
## Last Updated: YYYY-MM-DD
---
## 1. Problem Statement
What problem are we solving? Why now?
Business context and user impact.
## 2. Goals
- Primary goal
- Secondary goal
## Non-Goals (Explicit Scope Limits)
- What we're NOT solving
- What we're deferring
## 3. Proposed Solution
### 3.1 Overview
High-level description and diagram.
### 3.2 Detailed Design
Technical details, components, interactions.
### 3.3 API/Data Contract
Endpoints, schemas, contracts.
### 3.4 Data Model
Database changes, migrations needed.
## 4. Alternatives Considered
### Alternative A: [Name]
Description, pros, cons, why rejected.
### Alternative B: [Name]
Description, pros, cons, why rejected.
## 5. Dependencies
- External services
- Other teams' work
- Third-party systems
## 6. Security Considerations
- Authentication/authorization
- Data handling
- Threat model updates
## 7. Testing Strategy
- Unit test approach
- Integration test approach
- Load/performance testing
## 8. Rollout Plan
- Feature flags
- Gradual rollout steps
- Rollback procedure
## 9. Success Metrics
How we'll know this succeeded.
## 10. Open Questions
Questions needing resolution before approval.
---
## Review Comments & Decisions
[Captured during review process]
Review Checklist for Reviewers
DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST
PROBLEM & SCOPE:
☐ Problem is clearly stated and worth solving
☐ Goals are specific and measurable
☐ Non-goals are explicitly stated
☐ Scope is appropriate (not too large)
SOLUTION:
☐ Solution addresses the problem
☐ Design is understandable from description
☐ API/contracts are well-defined
☐ Data model is appropriate
☐ Error handling is considered
ALTERNATIVES:
☐ Reasonable alternatives were considered
☐ Rejection rationale is sound
RISKS:
☐ Dependencies are identified
☐ Security implications addressed
☐ Failure modes considered
☐ Rollback is possible
OPERABILITY:
☐ Monitoring/observability plan
☐ Testing strategy is sufficient
☐ Rollout plan is safe
☐ Documentation planned
IMPLEMENTATION:
☐ Effort estimate seems reasonable
☐ Can be done incrementally
☐ Team has required expertise
Task Integration
LINKING DESIGN TO IMPLEMENTATION
DESIGN APPROVAL TRIGGERS TASKS:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Epic: Express Checkout Feature │
│ Design Doc: docs/designs/express-checkout.md │
│ Status: Approved 2024-01-15 │
│ │
│ Phase 1: Foundation │
│ ├── Task: Create payment token table │
│ ├── Task: Implement tokenization endpoint │
│ └── Task: Add payment token tests │
│ │
│ Phase 2: Integration │
│ ├── Task: Order service integration │
│ ├── Task: Frontend checkout flow │
│ └── Task: End-to-end tests │
│ │
│ Phase 3: Rollout │
│ ├── Task: Feature flag setup │
│ ├── Task: Monitoring dashboard │
│ └── Task: Gradual rollout │
│ │
│ Each task links back to design doc section │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Best Practices
Anti-Patterns
✗ Skipping design for "simple" large changes
✗ Review meeting without pre-reading
✗ Endless review cycles
✗ Design docs abandoned after approval
✗ Only architect reviews (no team input)
✗ Analysis paralysis before any code