TL; DR: We create a code review guide to align expectations, improve feedback quality, and do cooperation reviews instead of germination. Here's what worked for us.
The problem we've seen
We did not set to write a code review guide to be formal or heavy process. We write this because our reviews are uneven -equal, unjust, and sometimes even bad. The developers are not sure what to expect when examining or reviewing, and the quality of the feedback is differently wild.
We need to align not only on how to check the code, but why we do it in the first place.
As we dig into the problem, we realize that the inconsistency is not just about What inspected- it is also about How Feedback has been conveyed. The way comments are delivered is different -so it is often difficult to say the difference between a question, a suggestion, or a necessary change. As a result, each comment thread requires excessive clarification before it acts, slowing everything down.
Why did we write a guide
We just don't want to solve tactical issues; We want to create a shared understanding of what a great review of our team looks like. Without that foundation, even experienced developers run a variety of assumptions.
We also saw the guide as a tool for onboarding New team members are faster, Reducing the friction of the reviewand developing a culture in which tests work together, politely, and both. Instead of relying on the knowledge or prophecy of the tribe, we want clear expectations that everything can consult and change together.
What is in the guide
Guide covered the same philosophy And the Practical mechanics of doing a good review code on our team.
We started with the goal: Code tests are a way to share knowledge, ensure maintenance, and place of architectural issues prominently- not just to catch typos or implementation style.
From there, we broke things to:
-
RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE REVIEWER: What to look for (eg in clarity, structure, test scope), and what to prevent (nitpicking without context).
-
RESPONSIBILITIES OF -Set: How to write a good PR description, how to request feedback, and how to respond to it.
-
Tone and communication: Always assume good intentions, prefer questions about demands, and do not let disagreement be personal.
-
Turnaround expects: How fast to check, and when it's okay to postpone.
-
Common pitfalls: bikeshedding, “drive-by” reviews, and excessive index in personal preference.
The idea is to make the process predictable and empower everyone to participate with confidence, regardless of the level of experience.
The guide itself is a cooperation project. Anyone on the team can suggest editing and contributing to it. This method ensures the document that reflects the team's emerging needs and perspectives, and will continue to improve over time.
To reduce the ambiguity in the tests, we introduced a simple but effective prefixing system. Reviewers have tied their comments on one of the three labels:
-
Req – a necessary change.
-
Opt – an optional suggestion.
-
QQ – a clarification question.
These prefixes have helped reviewers to talk clearly and make it easier for those who set the responses prioritize. It also improves tone and reduces friction, especially in larger PR. No tools are needed – just a habit that is stuck.
What has really changed
Impact immediately. The overall quality of the tests has improved dramatically feedback has become clearer, more acting, and more consistent. The developers do not need to guess which comments are blocking and which are the suggestions.
For those who have PR, this means faster, more confident repeating. They quickly determine what it takes to meet to move forward and what can be reasonable to discuss or even dismiss. The reviews have become less about judgment and more about collaboration.
The tone transfer also made a difference. Through clear feedback framing, the discussions remained focused and polite. The process is felt like a conversation between peers, not a step by auditing or gatekeeping. It encouraged the thoughtful conversation and raised the baseline for what we expected and contributed to each review.
Advice to other teams
Start small and focus on the goal in the process. According to what is a review of the code, not just how to do it. A shared document can go a long way to align expectations -and simple habits such as prefixing comments can noticeably improve clarity and tone without adding overhead.
