TL;DR
- Most review checklists don’t account for reviewer fatigue or PR context
- A good review process should flex based on change type, not all PRs are equal
- Metrics like time to first review and unreviewed merges help teams spot bottlenecks
- Flow shows exactly where your code review process is working and where it's slowing you down
Code reviews are supposed to help so why do they feel like a chore?
A teammate opens a small PR. Days pass. No review. Meanwhile, a risky architectural change gets a lightning-fast “LGTM” and ships to prod.
Sound familiar?
It’s not that your team doesn’t care. It’s that most review processes weren’t built for how dev teams work today. They’re either too rigid, too vague, or overloaded with rules that turn thoughtful feedback into checklist theater.
The result? Reviews get delayed, quality suffers, and your team’s flow takes a hit.
The good news: it doesn’t have to be this way. With a smart, flexible checklist, and a little help from metrics, you can make code reviews not just faster, but more useful and collaborative.
What a great code review actually looks like
A solid code review isn’t just about catching bugs it’s about building clarity, confidence, and trust across your team. And that means going beyond a one-size-fits-all checklist.
Technical review checklist: the must-haves
- Correctness: Does the code do what it’s supposed to?
- Clarity: Is the code understandable and easy to maintain?
- Testing: Are there meaningful, passing tests?
- Security: Are there risks or vulnerabilities?
- Performance: Is it efficient for what it’s doing?
Pro tip: Let your linter and CI handle style save human focus for logic.
Collaboration cues: not everything belongs in code
- Clear PR descriptions
- Comments that are respectful, helpful and specific
- Distributed review load
- Feedback that teaches, not punishes
Avoid these common code review pitfalls
- Empty “LGTM”s: Be specific. Acknowledge what you actually reviewed.
- Nitpicking style: Let automation handle spacing, formatting, and lint rules.
- Idle PRs: Delays increase rework. Flow flags aging PRs automatically.
- Avoiding hard feedback: Ask questions. Clarity beats politeness.
- Overloading one reviewer: Rotate and share review duties to avoid burnout.
Consider adding these anti-patterns to your internal wiki or retro notes.
Review fatigue is real. Here’s how to reduce the burden
- Keep PRs small: Easier to review, merge, and learn from
- Rotate reviewers: Avoid bottlenecks and burnout
- Batch review time: Block 30–60 minutes vs. context-switching all day
- Prioritize PRs: Flow flags PRs with no comments or high risk
- Support async pacing: Normalize thoughtful feedback over rushed reviews.
Tools can help, if you use them well
Let automation do what it’s good at:
- Linters & formatters: Style
- CI pipelines: Tests
- Static analysis: Performance, duplication, or risky complexity
Then let people do what they’re good at:
- Code structure
- Design tradeoffs
- Naming, clarity, and edge cases
Flow connects these layers and shows you what still needs a human touch.
Want better reviews? Start measuring them
Here’s what Flow tracks and why it matters:
- Time to first review: Speed matters
- Review depth: Did anyone comment?
- PR age at merge: Are things stalling?
- Reviewer count: Is it always the same few people?
- Unreviewed merges: Risk red flag
Build a culture of continuous feedback not just PR comments
- Pair on tricky features
- Share review wins in retros
- Frame comments as coaching, not correction
- Use Flow to guide your team, not grade it
Try Flow to improve your code review process
Code reviews should boost velocity, not block it.
With Flow, you’ll know where your team’s process is thriving and where it’s falling short.
Ready to improve your team’s flow?
Try Flow free