7 Code Review Rules That Actually Get PRs Approved Faster

Code review is one of the highest-leverage activities in software development. Done well, it improves code quality, shares knowledge, and builds team cohesion. Done poorly, it becomes a bottleneck that frustrates everyone. This guide covers data-driven best practices for making code review effective.

Research shows that code review catches 60-90% of defects before they reach production—but only when reviews are thorough and timely. Most teams leave significant value on the table by not optimizing their review process.

Key Code Review Metrics

Before improving your review process, you need to measure it. These metrics provide a baseline and track progress:

Speed Metrics

Quality Metrics

Distribution Metrics

CodePulse tracks all these metrics automatically. View them in your Dashboard and Review Network.

Best Practices for Reviewers

1. Review Promptly

Fast feedback keeps authors in context and maintains flow. Set personal SLAs:

• Small PRs (< 100 lines): Review within 2 hours
• Medium PRs (100-400 lines): Review within 4 hours
• Large PRs (> 400 lines): Ask for breakdown or review within 8 hours

Tip: Block 30 minutes in the morning and afternoon for review duty.

2. Understand Before Commenting

Before leaving comments:

• Read the PR description and linked issues
• Understand the full context of the change
• Run the code locally for significant changes
• Check if your concern is addressed elsewhere in the PR

3. Categorize Your Feedback

Not all comments are equally important. Use prefixes to signal priority:

• BLOCKER: Must fix before merge (security, correctness, breaking change)
• SUGGESTION: Recommended improvement, but not required
• NIT: Minor style/preference issue, author's discretion
• QUESTION: Seeking clarification, not necessarily a change request

4. Be Specific and Actionable

Good review comments explain the problem AND suggest a solution:

5. Approve When Ready

Don't hold PRs hostage for minor issues. If your feedback is all NITs or SUGGESTIONs, approve with comments. This signals trust in the author to address feedback appropriately.

Best Practices for PR Authors

1. Make PRs Easy to Review

The easier your PR is to review, the faster and better feedback you'll get:

• Keep PRs small: Under 400 lines when possible
• Write clear descriptions: What, why, and how to test
• Self-review first: Catch obvious issues before requesting review
• Add context: Screenshots, test commands, relevant docs

2. Respond to Feedback Gracefully

Code review is a conversation, not a judgment:

• Thank reviewers for thorough feedback
• Ask clarifying questions if comments are unclear
• Explain your reasoning if you disagree (but stay open-minded)
• Address all comments, even if just with "Done" or "Won't fix because..."

3. Request Reviews Strategically

Choose reviewers who can provide meaningful feedback:

• Domain experts: For business logic changes
• Code owners: For changes to their areas (check CODEOWNERS)
• Fresh eyes: For architecture decisions
• Juniors: Include them for knowledge sharing (with a senior backup)

Team-Level Review Practices

Set Clear Review SLAs

Document expectations so everyone knows what "timely" means:

• First review: Within 4 business hours
• Follow-up reviews: Within 2 business hours
• Emergency fixes: Within 1 hour (with clear escalation path)

Set up Alert Rules in CodePulse to notify the team when PRs exceed these thresholds.

Balance Review Load

Review bottlenecks form when a few people handle most reviews. Use the Review Network to identify imbalances and:

• Rotate "reviewer of the day" duty
• Pair juniors with seniors on reviews
• Spread CODEOWNERS responsibilities
• Track review load in sprint planning

Create Review Guidelines

Document what your team cares about in reviews:

• What must be covered (security, performance, edge cases)
• What's out of scope for review (style issues handled by linters)
• When to request additional reviewers
• How to handle disagreements

Diagnosing Review Problems

Problem: Reviews Take Too Long

Problem: Review Quality Is Low

Problem: Review Culture Is Toxic

Automating Review Workflows

Automate the repetitive parts so humans can focus on what matters:

GitHub Native Features

• CODEOWNERS: Auto-request reviews from the right people
• Branch protection: Require reviews before merge
• Suggested changes: Let reviewers propose specific edits

CodePulse Alerts

• Stale PR alerts: Notify when PRs exceed age thresholds
• Review load alerts: Flag when reviewers are overloaded
• Coverage alerts: Catch PRs merged without review

External Tools

• Linters: Catch style issues before review (ESLint, Prettier)
• Static analysis: Find bugs automatically (SonarQube, CodeClimate)
• Security scanners: Catch vulnerabilities (Snyk, Dependabot)

Measuring Review Improvement

Track these metrics over time to see if your improvements are working:

1. Time to first review: Should decrease as SLAs take effect
2. Total review time: Should decrease with smaller PRs and faster cycles
3. Iteration cycles: Should stabilize at 1-2 with clearer communication
4. Review load variance: Should decrease as load balances
5. Escaped defects: Should decrease with thorough reviews

Use the Dashboard to track trends and the Executive Summary to report progress to leadership.

Related Guides

• Review Load Balancing Guide — distribute review work equitably across your team
• Reducing PR Cycle Time — speed up your entire delivery process
• Optimal Reviewer Count Guide — find the right number of reviewers for your team