"Looks Good to Me" Constructive Code Reviews • Adrienne Braganza Tacke & Paul Slaughter • GOTO 2024

Code reviews should focus on being constructive and collaborative rather than just finding defects - they’re an opportunity for knowledge sharing and mentoring

Clear communication and psychological safety are critical - teams need to feel safe giving and receiving feedback without fear of harsh criticism

Automation (CI/CD, linting, etc.) should handle mechanical checks so reviewers can focus on higher-value feedback about architecture, maintainability, and knowledge sharing

Setting clear team goals and expectations for code review is important - define what you want to achieve through the process (knowledge sharing, catching defects, etc.)

Objective, outcome-focused comments are more effective than subjective or unclear feedback. Provide context and explain the reasoning behind suggestions

Quick turnaround times on reviews help keep the process efficient. Long delays can create bottlenecks and reduce engagement

Leading by example as a reviewer helps establish good practices. Show what constructive feedback looks like rather than just demanding changes

Having multiple reviewers provides different perspectives and helps spread knowledge across the team rather than creating silos

Take discussions offline when needed - some issues are better resolved through conversation rather than long comment threads

Measure the effectiveness of code reviews through metrics like change failure rate, but also consider qualitative factors like team morale and knowledge sharing