Let’s be honest: code reviews can be a mess. One day, you get a 30-comment deep dive into algorithmic efficiency. The next, for a similarly complex change, you get a “LGTM 👍” five minutes after you open the pull request. This inconsistency is more than just annoying; it’s a direct threat to your codebase’s quality and your team’s velocity. The good news is that there’s a simple, low-effort fix that too many teams ignore: code review templates.
And no, this isn’t about adding bureaucracy. It’s the opposite. A good template is a cognitive shortcut. It’s a shared checklist that frees up brainpower from remembering the mundane stuff (Did they add tests? Is the documentation updated?) so you can focus on the hard stuff—the logic, the architecture, and the user impact. It’s about ensuring every PR, whether reviewed by a senior architect or a new hire, gets the same foundational level of scrutiny.
The Vicious Cycle of Inconsistent Reviews
Ever seen this happen? A junior dev gets their PR nitpicked to death over style, while a senior dev’s massive refactor sails through because everyone just assumes it’s correct. This is how bugs slip in and bad patterns spread.
Reviewer fatigue is real. After your third review of the day, it’s easy to just skim the code. You’re looking for obvious errors, but you might forget to check for security vulnerabilities or performance bottlenecks. You’re human.
This is where a template changes the game. It acts as a guide for both the author and the reviewer.
- For the author: It’s a pre-flight checklist. Before you even request a review, you can run through the template yourself. “Did I forget to update the README? Ah, yes.” This cuts down on the back-and-forth immediately.
- For the reviewer: It’s a structured process. Instead of just “reading the code,” you’re prompted to think about specific areas: Is this scalable? Is the error handling robust? Does it adhere to our API design patterns?
It levels the playing field and turns a subjective process into a more objective, consistent one. The result? Higher-quality code, faster review cycles, and a fantastic tool for mentoring and knowledge sharing.
The Anatomy of a Great Code Review Template
So, what actually goes into one of these? A good template isn’t a 100-point inspection list that takes an hour to fill out. It’s a concise set of prompts covering the most critical aspects of a change.
Think of it in layers, from the most fundamental to the more nuanced.
Core Components of Effective Code Review Templates
A solid starting point covers these bases. You can copy-paste this Markdown into your own PR template file (PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md in a .github folder, for example).
1. Description
- Explains what the PR does and why it’s needed.
- Should include a link to the related ticket or issue.
- Example comment:
<!-- What does this PR do? Why is it needed? Link to the ticket/issue. -->
2. How to Test
- Clear, step-by-step instructions for the reviewer to verify the changes.
- Example comment:
<!-- Provide clear, step-by-step instructions for the reviewer to verify the changes. -->
3. Author’s Checklist
My code follows the team’s style guides.
I have added and updated tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.
I have updated the necessary documentation (e.g., README, API docs).
I have run the full test suite locally and it passed.
4. Reviewer’s Checklist
→ Functionality
The change delivers the promised value and meets acceptance criteria.
The code works as expected. I’ve tested it.
→ Readability & Maintainability
The code is clear, concise, and easy to understand.
Variable and function names are descriptive.
Complex logic is broken down into smaller functions/components.
→ Technical Best Practices
The solution is architecturally sound.
Potential performance bottlenecks have been considered.
Error handling is robust and user-friendly.
There are no obvious security vulnerabilities (e.g., SQL injection, XSS).
Dependencies are managed correctly.
This simple structure already accomplishes a few key things:
- It forces the author to explain their work and provide testing instructions. This alone is a huge win.
- It separates the author’s responsibilities from the reviewer’s.
- It guides the reviewer to think beyond just “does it work?” and consider maintainability, performance, and security.
One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Customizing Your Templates
The generic template above is a great start, but the real power comes from tailoring templates to your specific needs. You wouldn’t use the same checklist for a documentation typo as you would for a new authentication service.
Consider creating a few different templates for different contexts. Most Git platforms (GitHub, GitLab, etc.) let you create multiple templates and have the PR author choose the right one.
Here are a few ideas:
The Frontend Component Template
When you’re shipping a new React or Vue component, the concerns are different. You might create PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE_FRONTEND.md.
Component Checklist (Frontend)
Accessibility (a11y):
Is the component keyboard-navigable?
Does it use correct ARIA attributes?
Have you tested with a screen reader?
Reusability:
Is the component’s API clear and flexible?
Is it decoupled from business logic?
State Management:
Does it manage its own state correctly?
Or does it properly connect to the global store (e.g., Redux, Pinia)?
Styling:
Does it follow our design system?
Are styles scoped properly to avoid conflicts?
2. The Backend Service Template
API Contract:
Does the endpoint conform to our OpenAPI/Swagger spec?
Are request/response formats correct?
Database:
Are database queries efficient?
Are indexes used where necessary?
Is there a migration script, and is it reversible?
Error Handling:
Are status codes (400, 404, 500) used correctly?
Are error messages logged with sufficient context?
Observability:
Are new metrics, logs, or traces added to monitor the health of this service?
3. The “Quick Fix” Template
1. Description
- A one-sentence summary of the fix and a link to the ticket.
- Can include additional context, links to tickets or issues, and the motivation for the change.
2. Verification
This is a low-risk change that does not require a full review cycle.
The point isn’t to create a template for every possible scenario. It’s to recognize that different types of work have different risk profiles and require different kinds of scrutiny.
Making It Stick: Adoption and Iteration
Creating a template is the easy part. Getting the team to actually use it consistently is harder.
Integrate, Don’t Dictate
Don’t just email a .md file and hope for the best. Natively integrate the templates into your workflow.
- GitHub: Create a
PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.mdfile in a.github/directory in your repository’s root. For multiple templates, you can create a.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/directory and put multiple markdown files in there. - GitLab: Do the same, but in a
.gitlab/merge_request_templates/directory. - Bitbucket: You can set a default pull request description in the repository settings.
When someone opens a PR, the template will be pre-populated in the description box. This simple step lowers the friction to zero and makes adoption almost automatic.
Start Small and Get Buy-In
Introduce the idea to your team as an experiment. Say, “Hey, I’ve noticed our reviews are a bit all over the place. What if we tried using a simple template for the next two sprints to see if it helps us catch things earlier? We can always change it or get rid of it if it doesn’t work.”
Frame it as a tool to help everyone, not a process to police them.
Your Template is a Living Document
The worst thing you can do is write a template and then never touch it again. It should evolve with your team and your product.
- Did a specific type of bug slip through to production last quarter? Add a checklist item for it.
- Is everyone just checking a box without actually doing the thing? Rephrase it or consider if it’s truly necessary. Maybe it’s better to automate that check in CI.
- Did the team adopt a new architectural pattern? Add a prompt to ensure new code follows it.
Hold a short review of your templates every quarter. What’s working? What’s not? What’s just annoying? This keeps the process relevant and valuable, not bureaucratic.
It’s About Guardrails, Not Gates
Ultimately, code review templates are not about slowing people down or adding red tape. They are guardrails. They ensure a baseline of quality and consistency, which frees up your team’s collective intelligence to focus on solving novel, complex problems.
By automating the “did you remember to…” part of the review, you create more space for the “have you considered…” part. And that’s where the real magic happens.
What to Do Next
- 1. Have a conversation: Talk to your team. Ask them: “Do you feel like our code reviews are consistent? What’s one thing you wish every PR author/reviewer checked?”
- 2. Draft a v1 template: Start with the general-purpose template from this article. Add or remove one or two items based on your team’s conversation. Don’t over-engineer it.
- 3. Integrate it: Add the
PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.mdfile to your main repository. Announce it in your team’s chat channel as a two-sprint experiment. - 4. Schedule a check-in: Put 30 minutes on the calendar a month from now to discuss how it’s going. Iterate based on feedback.
