Code Review Process Checklist (2026)

0 of 23 completed

0%

PR Authoring Standards

Good reviews start with good PRs. Set standards that make PRs easy to review.

Set a PR size guideline of under 200 lines changedcritical

Research from Google shows PRs under 200 lines get reviewed 15x faster than PRs over 1000 lines. Enforce this as a team norm, not a hard rule — some changes are legitimately large, but they should be the exception.

Require a PR description templatecritical

Every PR should explain: what changed, why it changed, how to test it, and any risks. Use a GitHub/GitLab PR template file (.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md) to enforce this automatically.

Link PRs to tickets or issuesimportant

Every PR should reference the Jira/Linear/GitHub issue it addresses. This creates traceability from code to requirements. Use keywords like 'Closes #123' for automatic linking.

Include screenshots or recordings for UI changesimportant

For any frontend change, include a before/after screenshot or a short screen recording. This dramatically speeds up review because the reviewer can see the result without pulling the branch.

Self-review before requesting reviewnice-to-have

PR authors should review their own diff before requesting review. This catches obvious issues (debug logs, TODO comments, missing tests) and shows respect for the reviewer's time.

Reviewer Assignment

Who reviews what, and how reviews are distributed across the team.

Set up CODEOWNERS for automatic reviewer assignmentcritical

Use a CODEOWNERS file to automatically assign reviewers based on which files are changed. This ensures the right people review each PR and distributes reviews by area of ownership.

Implement a review rotation for shared codeimportant

For code not covered by CODEOWNERS, rotate review assignments. This spreads knowledge across the team and prevents one person from being the bottleneck.

Limit required reviewers to 1-2 per PRimportant

Requiring 3+ reviewers creates a coordination problem — everyone assumes someone else will review. One required reviewer with an optional second is the sweet spot for most teams.

Allow anyone on the team to review any PRnice-to-have

Don't restrict reviews to senior engineers. Junior engineers learn by reviewing, and they catch different types of issues. Pair junior reviewers with a senior reviewer for critical changes.

Review SLA and Turnaround

Set expectations for how quickly PRs should be reviewed. This is the single biggest lever for reducing lead time.

Set a 4-hour first-review SLA for PRs under 200 linescritical

During business hours, the first review should happen within 4 hours. This keeps the author in context and enables same-day iteration. Track this metric weekly.

Set a 24-hour SLA for larger PRsimportant

PRs over 200 lines are harder to review and reasonably take longer. A 24-hour (1 business day) SLA is appropriate. If large PRs are common, address the root cause: break work into smaller chunks.

Block dedicated review time each morningimportant

Have each developer spend 30-60 minutes reviewing pending PRs first thing in the morning. This clears the review queue before people start new work and ensures nothing waits overnight.

Set up review reminder notificationsimportant

Configure your git platform to send reminders for pending reviews after 4 hours. GitHub has this built in via scheduled reminders for teams. Slack integrations can also ping reviewers.

Track review turnaround time weeklyimportant

Measure median time from review request to first review. Share this metric in your retrospective. Tools like Gitmore calculate this automatically from git data.

Review Quality Guidelines

What reviewers should focus on and how to give feedback that's helpful, not demoralizing.

Focus reviews on logic, design, and correctness — not stylecritical

Automate style enforcement with linters and formatters (Prettier, ESLint, Black). Human reviewers should focus on: does this logic handle edge cases? Is the design appropriate? Are there security implications?

Use comment prefixes to indicate severityimportant

Adopt prefixes like 'nit:' (minor, optional), 'suggestion:' (consider this), 'question:' (need clarification), and 'blocker:' (must fix before merge). This prevents ambiguity about what's required vs. optional.

Explain the WHY behind feedback, not just the WHATimportant

Instead of 'use a map here,' say 'A map would be O(1) lookup vs O(n) with the array, which matters because this runs per-request.' This teaches the author and prevents the same issue in future PRs.

Approve with minor comments when appropriateimportant

If the only feedback is nits or suggestions, approve the PR with comments. Don't force another review round for trivial changes. Trust the author to address minor feedback.

Avoid rewrite requests after code is writtennice-to-have

If a PR needs a fundamental redesign, that's a planning failure, not a review outcome. Catch design issues earlier with design docs or pre-implementation discussions for complex changes.

Automation

Let machines handle everything they can so human reviewers focus on what matters.

Run linters and formatters in CIcritical

Configure CI to check code style, formatting, and lint rules on every PR. If CI catches it, a human doesn't have to comment on it. Auto-fix where possible.

Run tests in CI before reviewcritical

Don't waste reviewer time on a PR where tests are failing. Require CI to pass before the PR can be reviewed or merged.

Enable auto-merge when all checks passimportant

Once a PR is approved and CI passes, it should merge automatically. This eliminates the 'approved but sitting there for hours' problem.

Set up PR size warningsnice-to-have

Use a bot or CI check to flag PRs over 200 lines with a warning: 'This PR is large. Consider splitting it.' This reinforces the small PR culture.

Pro Tips

Expert advice

1

The fastest way to improve review culture: the engineering manager reviews PRs within 2 hours, setting the standard by example

2

Track review turnaround time in your retrospective — making it visible creates accountability

3

If a PR is urgent, mark it explicitly (use a 'priority' label) rather than pinging people in Slack — this is more scalable and less interruptive

4

Pair programming can replace async review for complex changes — the review happens during the work, eliminating turnaround time entirely

5

Use Gitmore to automatically report review metrics weekly — teams that measure review turnaround improve it faster

FAQ

Common questions

How many reviewers should a PR require?

One required reviewer is sufficient for most teams. Two is appropriate for critical systems (payments, authentication, infrastructure). More than two creates coordination problems and slows down merging without proportionally improving quality.

How do you handle review disagreements?

If a reviewer and author disagree, they should discuss in the PR comments or hop on a quick call. If they can't resolve it, the team lead or tech lead makes the final call. The key is to resolve quickly — don't let disagreements block a PR for days.

Should you review your own PRs?

Self-review before requesting others' review is a good practice — it catches obvious issues. But self-review should never count as the required approval. A second set of eyes catches things the author is blind to.

How do you review PRs for code you don't understand?

Focus on what you CAN review: PR description clarity, test coverage, error handling, and whether the approach seems reasonable. Ask questions about parts you don't understand — your confusion might reveal documentation or naming issues. Flag to the author that you reviewed for general quality but recommend a domain expert also take a look.

More Checklists