9 Actionable Code Review Best Practices for 2025

Code review is a critical pillar of modern software development, but it's often reduced to a bottleneck or a rubber-stamping exercise. A truly effective process goes far beyond just catching bugs; it’s a powerful catalyst for knowledge sharing, higher code quality, and a stronger, more collaborative engineering culture. Moving past the superficial 'Looks Good To Me' requires a deliberate and strategic approach. An optimized review process ensures that every change is scrutinized for maintainability, performance, and adherence to standards, directly impacting the long-term health of your codebase.

This article dives straight into nine actionable code review best practices designed to transform your team's workflow. We will explore specific techniques to make reviews faster, more constructive, and profoundly more valuable for everyone involved. You will learn how to structure pull requests for maximum clarity, provide feedback that empowers authors, and leverage automation to handle the routine checks, freeing up human reviewers to focus on what matters most. These proven strategies will help your team ship better software with less friction and foster an environment of continuous improvement and shared ownership.

1. Review Small, Focused Changes

One of the most impactful code review best practices is to keep the size of each change small and focused. Large, sprawling pull requests (PRs) that touch thousands of lines of code across dozens of files are notoriously difficult to review effectively. They overwhelm reviewers, making it easy to miss subtle bugs, architectural flaws, and security vulnerabilities.

This principle, championed by tech giants like Google and Atlassian, advocates for limiting each PR to a single, logical unit of work. This could be a small feature, a single bug fix, or a preparatory refactor. A study by SmartBear found that developers can only effectively review 200 to 400 lines of code at a time before their ability to spot defects diminishes sharply. By adhering to this, you enable reviewers to fully grasp the context, provide higher-quality feedback, and complete reviews much faster.

How to Implement Small, Focused Reviews

Breaking down complex work requires a strategic approach. It’s not just about arbitrary line counts; it's about logical separation.

• Separate Preparatory Work: If a new feature requires refactoring existing code, submit the refactoring as a separate PR first. This allows the team to review the structural changes in isolation before tackling the new logic.
• Split Frontend and Backend: For full-stack features, create separate PRs for UI changes and the corresponding API/backend logic. This allows specialized reviewers to focus on their areas of expertise.
• Use Feature Flags: Feature flags are excellent for shipping large features incrementally. You can merge small, incomplete pieces of code behind a flag, allowing for continuous review and integration without impacting users.
• Leverage Stacked Diffs: For a series of dependent changes, use stacked diffs (or stacked PRs). This presents a sequence of small, related changes, where each commit builds upon the previous one, making a large task digestible.

This practice not only improves review quality but also accelerates the development cycle by preventing PRs from becoming bottlenecks.

2. Provide Constructive and Specific Feedback

Effective code review best practices hinge on the quality of feedback. The goal is to improve the codebase and foster a collaborative environment, not to criticize the author. Vague or harsh comments can demotivate developers and create friction, while constructive and specific feedback encourages growth and produces higher-quality code. The key is to focus on the code's behavior, logic, and adherence to standards, rather than making it personal.

This approach, central to the engineering cultures at Microsoft and Google, shifts the focus from fault-finding to collaborative problem-solving. It’s about explaining the 'why' behind a suggestion, not just the 'what'. Instead of saying "This is wrong," a better comment would be, "Using a map here might offer better performance for lookups. What do you think about this approach?" This frames the review as a discussion aimed at finding the best solution together. For an in-depth look, explore this ultimate guide to constructive feedback in code reviews.

How to Provide Constructive and Specific Feedback

Adopting a constructive mindset requires conscious effort and specific communication techniques. It’s about being clear, respectful, and helpful.

• Frame Comments as Suggestions, Not Demands: Use phrases like "What if we..." or "Could we consider..." to open a dialogue. Avoid imperative language like "Fix this" or "Change that."
• Explain Your Reasoning: Always back up your feedback with logic. Link to style guides, documentation, or relevant articles to provide context and support your suggestions.
• Use Conventional Prefixes: Standardize feedback with prefixes like nit: for minor style issues, suggestion: for optional improvements, and question: to request clarification. This helps the author prioritize comments.
• Balance Criticism with Praise: Acknowledge well-written code or a clever solution. Positive reinforcement is a powerful tool for building morale and encouraging good practices.
• Focus on the Code, Not the Coder: Use "we" to foster a sense of shared ownership. For instance, say "We can make this function more readable" instead of "You need to make your function more readable."

3. Establish Clear Review Criteria and Standards

One of the most effective code review best practices is to eliminate ambiguity by defining clear, explicit guidelines for what constitutes a "good" review. Without shared standards, reviews become subjective, inconsistent, and can lead to friction. Establishing a common checklist ensures every piece of code is evaluated against the same criteria for quality, security, and performance.

This approach, popularized by organizations like Google and Airbnb through their comprehensive, open-source style guides, transforms code reviews from a matter of opinion into a systematic engineering process. When reviewers know exactly what to look for, they can provide objective, high-value feedback that focuses on agreed-upon standards rather than personal preferences. This consistency builds trust and helps developers learn the team's expectations quickly.

How to Implement Clear Review Standards

Creating effective review criteria involves collaboration and a commitment to maintaining a living document that evolves with your team.

• Automate What You Can: Start by automating checks for code style, formatting, and linting rules. This frees up human reviewers to focus on more complex issues like logic, architecture, and potential security flaws.
• Create Language-Specific Checklists: Develop tailored guidelines for each programming language your team uses. Address common pitfalls, performance considerations, and best practices specific to that ecosystem. Explore a comprehensive code review checklist to see what to include.
• Include Security and Performance Items: Ensure your standards explicitly require reviewers to check for common security vulnerabilities (like SQL injection or XSS) and assess the performance implications of the change.
• Use PR Templates: Enforce your standards by using pull request templates that prompt authors to self-review against the checklist and provide necessary context, such as testing steps or design documentation links.

By setting these standards, you create a feedback loop that not only improves code quality but also serves as a powerful tool for mentoring and knowledge sharing across the team.

4. Respond to Feedback Promptly

One of the biggest drags on development velocity is a slow code review cycle. Treating reviews as a low-priority task creates a significant bottleneck, leaving authors blocked and context-switching while they wait. A core tenet of effective code review best practices is to respond promptly, both as a reviewer providing initial feedback and as an author addressing comments. This transforms the review from a passive hand-off into an active, high-bandwidth collaboration.

This principle, championed by companies like Atlassian and GitLab, emphasizes that a PR is still active work for the entire team, not just the author. When reviews are delayed, the original context fades for everyone involved, making subsequent discussions less effective. By prioritizing a quick turnaround, teams keep momentum high and ensure that the code is fresh in everyone's mind, leading to more insightful feedback and a faster path to merging. Companies like Spotify aim for a 24-hour response time to maintain this agile cadence.

How to Implement Prompt Responses

Fostering a culture of timely reviews requires establishing clear expectations and supportive systems. It’s about creating an environment where reviews are seen as a shared responsibility.

• Set Team-Wide Goals: Establish a clear service-level objective (SLO) for review turnaround, such as a "same-day review" policy. This creates a shared understanding of what is expected.
• Integrate Notifications: Configure review requests to post directly into team communication channels like Slack or Microsoft Teams. This makes requests more visible and harder to ignore than an email notification.
• Block Time for Reviews: Encourage developers to set aside specific, focused blocks of time each day for conducting code reviews. This prevents reviews from being an afterthought squeezed between other tasks.
• Implement a Review Rotation: To prevent review fatigue and distribute the workload, consider a rotating "on-call" reviewer system, as practiced by teams at Palantir. This ensures someone is always available for a prompt first pass.

By adopting these habits, teams can significantly reduce the time code spends in the review phase, directly accelerating the entire development lifecycle.

5. Use Automated Tools and Checks

One of the most effective code review best practices is to offload repetitive, low-level checks to automated tools. By integrating linting, testing, and static analysis into your workflow, you free up human reviewers to concentrate on higher-level concerns like architectural soundness, business logic, and algorithmic efficiency. Instead of nitpicking syntax or style, reviewers can focus on what truly matters.

This approach, championed by companies like SonarSource and GitHub, ensures a baseline level of quality before a pull request ever reaches a human. Automated checks act as a gatekeeper, catching common errors, security vulnerabilities, and style violations instantly. This not only saves time but also reduces friction in the review process by standardizing objective feedback and minimizing subjective debates over code formatting.

How to Implement Automated Checks

Effective automation requires thoughtful integration into your CI/CD pipeline and local development environment. It’s about creating a safety net that supports developers, not a barrier that frustrates them.

• Run Checks Before Human Review: Configure your CI pipeline to execute linters (like ESLint for JavaScript), formatters (like Prettier or Checkstyle), and unit tests on every commit. A PR should only be ready for human review after these checks pass.
• Use Pre-Commit Hooks: Encourage developers to use pre-commit hooks that run these checks locally before code is even committed. This catches issues at the earliest possible stage, preventing broken builds and wasted time.
• Integrate Static and Security Analysis: Tools like SonarQube or Snyk can be integrated directly into your pipeline to scan for complex bugs, code smells, and security vulnerabilities, providing a deeper layer of quality assurance.
• Enforce Test Coverage: Set clear test coverage thresholds using tools like Codecov. This ensures that new code is adequately tested, preventing regressions and building confidence in the codebase.

To ensure a seamless transition from development to review and deployment, it's crucial to consider integrating development tools like Jira and GitHub to keep your automated checks and project management in sync.

6. Include Tests in Code Reviews

A fundamental code review best practice is to treat tests as first-class citizens, equal in importance to the production code they validate. Reviewing code without its corresponding tests is like proofreading a document without knowing its purpose. It leaves a critical gap in understanding and quality assurance, allowing for regressions and bugs to slip through.

This principle, strongly advocated by proponents of Test-Driven Development like Kent Beck, insists that changes are not complete until they are proven correct by automated tests. Companies like Amazon and Stripe integrate comprehensive test reviews into their engineering culture to maintain high reliability. By reviewing tests, you ensure the code not only works as intended for the "happy path" but is also resilient against edge cases and future refactoring. This practice transforms the code review from a simple syntax check into a robust quality gate.

How to Implement Test-Centric Reviews

Integrating test validation into your review process requires a shift in mindset and a checklist of key considerations. It’s about evaluating the quality of the safety net as much as the feature itself.

• Review Test Logic and Coverage: Don't just check for the existence of tests. Scrutinize what they cover. Ensure both expected behavior and critical edge cases (e.g., null inputs, error conditions) are handled.
• Assess Readability and Intent: A test should be self-documenting. Check that test names are descriptive and the test body is clear and easy to understand. A future developer should be able to grasp the code's intended behavior just by reading the test.
• Verify Assertions are Meaningful: Confirm that the test actually validates the intended outcome. A weak assertion, like checking if a result is not null, might pass while hiding a functional bug. The assertion should be specific to the expected result.
• Evaluate the Use of Mocks: When mocks or test doubles are used, ensure they are used correctly. They should isolate the unit under test without creating brittle tests that are too tightly coupled to implementation details.

Making test quality a non-negotiable part of every review builds a culture of accountability and significantly improves long-term code health.

7. Involve Multiple Reviewers When Appropriate

While a single, thorough reviewer is often sufficient, strategically involving multiple reviewers is a critical code review best practice for complex or high-impact changes. This approach ensures diverse perspectives and specialized expertise are applied where they matter most, significantly improving code quality and mitigating risk. It moves beyond a simple approval and transforms the review into a collaborative checkpoint for architectural soundness, security, and cross-functional alignment.

This practice is a cornerstone of robust engineering cultures at companies like Microsoft, which uses a graduated review process for Windows kernel changes, and Google, which enforces strict ownership and review policies for critical infrastructure. By requiring input from different specialists, such as a security expert, a domain owner, and a performance engineer, you can catch a wider range of potential issues that a single generalist might miss.

How to Implement Multi-Reviewer Workflows

Assigning multiple reviewers should be a deliberate process, not a default action. The key is to match the reviewers' expertise to the nature of the change.

• Assign by Expertise and Ownership: For a change touching both the database and the UI, assign a backend specialist and a frontend developer. Use tools like a CODEOWNERS file to automate these assignments based on which parts of the codebase are modified. For more details on this, you can learn more about how to automatically assign reviewers in GitHub.
• Designate Primary and Secondary Roles: Clarify responsibilities to avoid the bystander effect. A primary reviewer is responsible for the overall logic and correctness, while secondary reviewers can be tasked with checking specific concerns like security, performance, or API contract adherence.
• Establish Tiered Review Processes: For mission-critical code, implement a multi-stage review. An initial review from a teammate could be followed by a mandatory review from a principal engineer or an architecture review board, as seen in practices at companies like LinkedIn.
• Use for Cross-Team Impact: When a change affects other teams, such as modifying a shared API, it's essential to include a representative from each affected team. This prevents integration issues and ensures the change aligns with broader system goals.

8. Focus on Learning and Knowledge Sharing

Transforming code reviews from a simple quality gate into a powerful learning tool is one of the most impactful code review best practices. Instead of just pointing out errors, reviews should be treated as a platform for collaborative learning and knowledge sharing. This approach fosters a culture of continuous improvement, where every team member, regardless of seniority, can learn from others' code, decisions, and feedback.

This philosophy, championed by companies like Shopify and GitLab, ensures that knowledge isn't siloed within individual developers. When a reviewer explains why a certain change is suggested or asks thoughtful questions about the author's approach, it elevates the entire team's understanding. It helps junior developers level up faster, spreads domain knowledge, and aligns the team on consistent architectural patterns and coding standards.

How to Implement Learning-Focused Reviews

Adopting a teaching and learning mindset requires intentional effort from both the author and the reviewer. It's about shifting the focus from "what is wrong" to "how can we all improve."

• Explain the "Why": When suggesting a change, always explain the reasoning behind it. Link to documentation, style guides, or articles that provide context. This turns a simple correction into a lasting lesson.
• Praise Good Work: Code reviews shouldn't only focus on negatives. When you see a clever solution, a well-written test, or a great use of a design pattern, call it out. Positive reinforcement encourages good practices.
• Ask Open-Ended Questions: Instead of making a direct command, ask questions like, "What was your thinking behind this approach?" or "Have you considered how this might handle X edge case?" This encourages a discussion rather than a directive.
• Use Reviews for Architectural Discussions: When a change touches on a core architectural pattern, use the PR as an opportunity to discuss it. This ensures everyone is aligned and understands the system's design principles.

This practice builds a stronger, more knowledgeable, and more collaborative engineering culture, making the entire development process more effective.

9. Review Your Own Code First

One of the most efficient code review best practices is for authors to perform a thorough self-review before requesting feedback from others. This initial pass acts as a critical quality gate, allowing the author to catch obvious mistakes, remove debugging code, and clarify logic. By treating your own pull request (PR) as if you were the reviewer, you save the team's valuable time and focus their attention on more complex architectural or logical issues.

This practice is deeply embedded in the engineering cultures of companies like Google and Atlassian. Their internal guidelines often require developers to add comments to their own PRs, explaining complex sections or preemptively answering questions. This not only demonstrates respect for the reviewer's time but also forces the author to think critically about their own solution, often leading to immediate improvements and a much smoother, faster review cycle for the rest of the team.

How to Implement Self-Reviews

Effective self-review is more than a quick glance; it requires a deliberate and structured approach. Treat it as the first formal step in the review process.

• Adopt the Reviewer's Mindset: Use your code hosting platform's PR interface (e.g., GitHub, GitLab) to view the diff. Read through every line as if you're seeing it for the first time, asking yourself if the changes are clear, necessary, and correct.
• Take a Short Break: Step away from the code for 15-30 minutes before starting your self-review. This mental reset helps you switch from a "writer" to a "critic" mindset, making it easier to spot errors.
• Create a Personal Checklist: Ensure your PR description is comprehensive, commit messages are clean, and all TODO comments or leftover debugging statements have been removed. Verify the code adheres to style guides and all tests pass.
• Annotate Your Own Code: Proactively add comments to the PR on complex or non-obvious sections. Explain your reasoning or link to relevant documentation. This anticipates reviewers' questions and accelerates their understanding.

This habit significantly reduces review friction and elevates the overall quality of the codebase by ensuring every change has passed at least one round of scrutiny before it even reaches a teammate.

Code Review Best Practices Comparison

Build a Culture of Continuous Improvement

Moving from a chaotic or inconsistent review process to an efficient, collaborative one is not about flipping a switch. It's about a collective commitment to incremental change and refinement. The code review best practices detailed throughout this article, from reviewing small, focused changes to leveraging automated tools, are not isolated tactics. They are interconnected components of a larger system designed to elevate your entire team's output and create a culture of shared ownership.

The ultimate goal is to transform code reviews from a perceived bottleneck into a powerful engine for quality and growth. When developers see reviews as an opportunity for learning and knowledge sharing, not just a gatekeeping exercise, the dynamic shifts. This is where true collaboration begins, leading to more resilient software, fewer bugs in production, and a more engaged, knowledgeable engineering team.

From Principles to Practice

Adopting these principles requires a deliberate, iterative approach. You don't need to implement all nine practices overnight. Instead, focus on creating a flywheel effect by starting with the most impactful changes for your team.

• Start Small: Choose one or two practices to introduce first. Perhaps it's standardizing your feedback style or implementing a pre-review checklist for authors.
• Measure and Adapt: Track key metrics like review cycle time or comments per pull request. Use this data to have open discussions in retrospectives about what’s working and what isn't.
• Reinforce the "Why": Continuously connect these practices back to the core benefits: better code quality, faster delivery cycles, and professional development for every team member. When the team understands the value, adoption becomes self-sustaining.

Mastering these code review best practices is a strategic investment in your team's long-term success. It moves the focus from simply catching errors to proactively building a better product and a stronger team. The consistency gained from establishing clear criteria, responding promptly, and reviewing your own code first creates a predictable, low-friction workflow that frees up mental energy for solving complex problems.

By embracing this mindset of continuous improvement, you build a resilient development process where quality is a shared responsibility, not an afterthought. This cultural shift ensures that every line of code not only meets technical standards but also contributes to a more maintainable, scalable, and robust system for years to come.

Tired of important pull requests getting lost in email inboxes or noisy channel notifications? PullNotifier streamlines your code review workflow by delivering targeted, real-time PR alerts directly in Slack, ensuring feedback cycles stay short and development momentum remains high. Try PullNotifier today and keep your team focused on shipping great code.