Why We Wrote a Code Review Guide. And What Actually Worked.

TL;DR: We created a code review guide to align expectations, improve feedback quality, and make reviews feel collaborative instead of gatekeeping. Here’s what worked for us.

The Problem We Saw

We didn’t set out to write a code review guide to be formal or process-heavy. We wrote it because our reviews were inconsistent, unstructured, and sometimes even unhelpful. Developers weren’t sure what was expected of them when reviewing or being reviewed, and the quality of feedback varied wildly. We needed to align not just on how to review code, but on why we were doing it in the first place.

As we dug into the problem, we realized the inconsistency wasn’t just about what was being reviewed- it was also about how feedback was communicated. The way comments were delivered varied so much that it was often hard to tell the difference between a question, a suggestion, or a required change. As a result, each comment thread required extra clarification before it could be acted on, which slowed everything down.

Why We Wrote a Guide

We didn’t just want to solve tactical issues; we wanted to create a shared understanding of what a good review looked like on our team. Without that foundation, even experienced developers were operating with different assumptions.

We also saw the guide as a tool for onboarding new team members faster, reducing review friction, and building a culture where reviews were collaborative, respectful, and consistent. Instead of relying on tribal knowledge or guesswork, we wanted clear expectations that everyone could reference and evolve together.

What’s in the Guide

The guide covers both the philosophy and the practical mechanics of doing a good code review on our team.

We started with the purpose: code reviews are a way to share knowledge, ensure maintainability, and spot architectural issues early- not just to catch typos or enforce style.

From there, we broke things down into:

• Reviewer responsibilities: what to look for (e.g. clarity, structure, test coverage), and what to avoid (nitpicking without context).
• Author responsibilities: how to write a good PR description, how to request feedback, and how to respond to it.
• Tone and communication: always assume good intent, prefer questions to demands, and don’t let disagreement become personal.
• Turnaround expectations: how quickly to review, and when it’s okay to defer.
• Common pitfalls: bikeshedding, “drive-by” reviews, and over-indexing on personal preference.

The idea was to make the process predictable without being rigid and to empower everyone to participate confidently, regardless of experience level.

The guide itself is a collaborative project. Anyone on the team can propose edits and contribute to it. This approach ensures the document reflects the evolving needs and insights of the team, and continues to improve over time.

Comment Prefixing: The Simple Trick That Changed Everything

To reduce ambiguity in reviews, we introduced a simple but effective prefixing system. Reviewers tag their comments with one of three labels:

• REQ – A required change.
• OPT – An optional suggestion.
• QQ – A clarifying question.

These prefixes helped reviewers communicate intent clearly and made it easier for authors to prioritize responses. It also improved tone and reduced friction, especially in larger PRs. No tools required—just a habit that stuck.

What Actually Changed

The impact was immediate. The overall quality of reviews improved dramatically- feedback became clearer, more actionable, and more consistent. Developers no longer had to guess which comments were blocking and which were suggestions.

For PR authors, it meant faster, more confident iteration. They could quickly identify what needed to be addressed to move forward and what could be reasonably discussed or even dismissed. Reviews became less about judgment and more about collaboration.

The shift in tone also made a difference. By clearly framing feedback, discussions stayed focused and respectful. The process felt more like a conversation between peers, not an audit or gatekeeping step. It encouraged thoughtful dialogue and raised the baseline for what we expect from and contribute to every review.

Advice to Other Teams

Start small and focus on purpose over process. Agree on what a code review is for, not just how to do it. A shared document can go a long way in aligning expectations—and simple habits like prefixing comments can dramatically improve clarity and tone without adding overhead.