5 min read • Guide 654 of 877
Code Review Process Optimization
Code reviews are crucial for code quality and knowledge sharing, but poor processes create frustrating bottlenecks. GitScrum helps track review status, identify review backlogs, and measure review turnaround times to help teams optimize their review workflows.
Review Process Design
Workflow Stages
CODE REVIEW PIPELINE:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ PR CREATED → READY FOR REVIEW → IN REVIEW → APPROVED │
│ │ │ │ │
│ ▼ ▼ ▼ │
│ [Waiting] [Active] [Merge] │
│ Target: <4h Target: <24h Target: <2h │
│ │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ CURRENT STATE: │
│ Ready for Review: 3 PRs (oldest: 2h) ✅ Healthy │
│ In Review: 2 PRs ✅ Healthy │
│ Approved: 1 PR (waiting merge) ✅ Healthy │
│ │
│ ALERTS: │
│ ⚠️ PR #234 waiting 6h (SLA exceeded) │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Review SLAs
REVIEW EXPECTATIONS:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ PRIORITY │ FIRST RESPONSE │ COMPLETION │ ESCALATION │
│─────────────┼────────────────┼────────────┼────────────────│
│ Critical │ 2 hours │ 4 hours │ After 3h │
│ High │ 4 hours │ 24 hours │ After 6h │
│ Normal │ 24 hours │ 48 hours │ After 36h │
│ Low │ 48 hours │ 72 hours │ After 60h │
│ │
│ RESPONSE TYPES: │
│ • Approve: Ready to merge │
│ • Comment: Questions/suggestions (non-blocking) │
│ • Request Changes: Must address before merge │
│ │
│ WHEN TO REQUEST CHANGES: │
│ • Security vulnerabilities │
│ • Breaking changes without migration │
│ • Missing tests for critical paths │
│ • Clear bugs in logic │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Pull Request Best Practices
PR Size Guidelines
OPTIMAL PR SIZE:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ LINES │ REVIEW TIME │ QUALITY │ RECOMMENDATION │
│──────────┼──────────────┼────────────┼────────────────────│
│ <100 │ 15-30 min │ Excellent │ ✅ Ideal │
│ 100-400 │ 30-60 min │ Good │ ✅ Acceptable │
│ 400-800 │ 60-90 min │ Declining │ ⚠️ Consider split │
│ 800+ │ 90+ min │ Poor │ ❌ Too large │
│ │
│ STRATEGIES FOR SMALLER PRs: │
│ │
│ 1. Feature flags │
│ Ship incomplete features behind flags │
│ │
│ 2. Stacked PRs │
│ PR 1: Data model → PR 2: API → PR 3: UI │
│ │
│ 3. Extract refactoring │
│ Refactor first, feature second │
│ │
│ 4. Vertical slices │
│ Ship thin feature end-to-end │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
PR Description Template
PR TEMPLATE:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ## What │
│ [One-line description of the change] │
│ │
│ ## Why │
│ [Context: problem being solved, link to task] │
│ │
│ ## How │
│ [Brief technical approach, key decisions] │
│ │
│ ## Testing │
│ - [ ] Unit tests added/updated │
│ - [ ] Manual testing completed │
│ - [ ] Edge cases considered │
│ │
│ ## Screenshots (if UI change) │
│ [Before/After screenshots] │
│ │
│ ## Review Focus │
│ [What you'd like reviewers to focus on] │
│ │
│ ## Checklist │
│ - [ ] Self-reviewed │
│ - [ ] Tests pass │
│ - [ ] Documentation updated │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Review Efficiency
Automation First
AUTOMATED CHECKS (before human review):
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ CI PIPELINE: │
│ ✓ Lint - Code style checks │
│ ✓ Type check - TypeScript errors │
│ ✓ Unit tests - Automated test suite │
│ ✓ Build - Compilation succeeds │
│ ✓ Security scan - Known vulnerabilities │
│ │
│ BENEFIT: Humans review logic, not formatting │
│ │
│ CODEOWNERS: │
│ # Automatically assign reviewers by path │
│ /api/* @backend-team │
│ /frontend/* @frontend-team │
│ /security/* @security-team │
│ *.sql @dba-team │
│ │
│ BOT COMMENTS: │
│ • Coverage report │
│ • Bundle size change │
│ • Performance impact │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Review Meetings
REVIEW PAIRING:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ WHEN TO PAIR REVIEW (sync): │
│ • Complex architectural changes │
│ • Security-sensitive code │
│ • Junior developer PRs (teaching opportunity) │
│ • Cross-team dependencies │
│ │
│ WHEN ASYNC IS FINE: │
│ • Well-documented small PRs │
│ • Standard patterns │
│ • Bug fixes with clear tests │
│ │
│ REVIEW HOUR (Team Practice): │
│ Daily 2-3pm: Team reviews pending PRs together │
│ │
│ Benefits: │
│ • PRs don't age │
│ • Knowledge sharing │
│ • Consistent review quality │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘