I’ve started thinking code review is one of the fastest ways to tell whether a team actually cares about quality or just likes to look busy. When reviews turn into drive-by nitpicks or rubber-stamping, it feels like everyone’s wearing a nice shirt over a mess.
What do people here think makes a review genuinely useful instead of just performative?
A review gets useful when it stops being style-police and starts asking “what could actually break here?” or “how do we know this does what you think it does?”
On my last team we made PRs say the intended behavior change and how it was checked, even if that was just “added X test” or “clicked through Y flow.” Without that, people drift into nitpicks because there’s nothing real to review.
:: Copyright KIRUPA 2024 //--