Code reviews can easily turn into a mess. In one PR you get a super detailed analysis full of notes. In the next one, a change of similar complexity goes through with almost no comments. This inconsistency is not just annoying; it directly affects codebase quality and team velocity. The good news is that there is a simple, low effort solution that many teams ignore: using a code review template.
And no, this does not mean adding more bureaucracy. It is the opposite. A good template works like a mental shortcut. It removes the need for the reviewer to remember the basics, tests, documentation, impact, and frees up focus for what really matters: logic, architecture, and user impact.
The idea is simple: ensure every PR receives the same minimum level of attention, whether it is reviewed by someone experienced or by someone who just joined the team.
The Vicious Cycle of Inconsistent Reviews
This happens in practically every team. A junior’s PR gets a review full of details while a large refactor done by a senior goes through with almost no comments. It is not bad intention. It is simply the kind of dynamic that lets problems slip and spreads inconsistent patterns across the codebase.
Another point is that reviewing code is tiring. After a few reviews on the same day, it is normal to look only at the basics. You quickly check if something is obviously wrong and move on. But at that pace, important aspects like security, performance, and system impact end up passing without attention. It is a natural focus limit, not a flaw.
A template helps reduce exactly this variation. It creates a structure that supports both the person opening the PR and the person reviewing it.
- For the person opening the PR, it works as a quick list before asking for review. They check documentation, tests, impact on other parts of the codebase, and avoid comments that could have been resolved earlier.
- For the reviewer, the template organizes what to look at. Instead of depending on memory or the energy of the day, you follow clear points like clarity, risks, side effects, and team standards. This makes the review more consistent.
The result is simple. Less variation in review quality, faster PRs, and a better environment for people who are learning.
How to Build a Code Review Template That Actually Works
So, what goes into a template like this? A good template is not a checklist with 100 items that takes an hour to fill out. It is a concise set of questions that cover the most critical aspects of a change.
Think of it in layers, from the most fundamental to the most detailed.
What Should Not Be Missing From Your Template
A good starting point covers these basic points. You can copy and paste this Markdown into your own PR template file (for example, PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md in a .github folder).
1. Description
-
Explains what the PR does and why it is necessary.
-
Should include a link to the related ticket or issue.
-
Example comment:
<!-- What does this PR do? Why is it necessary? Link to the ticket or 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 Checklist
Code follows the team’s style guides.
Tests were added or updated and are passing.
Documentation updated (README, API docs, etc.).
Full test suite executed locally and approved.
4. Reviewer Checklist
→ Functionality
The change delivers the promised value and meets the acceptance criteria.
The code works as expected and was tested.
→ Readability and Maintainability
Code is clear, concise, and easy to understand.
Variables and functions have descriptive names.
Complex logic is divided into smaller functions or components.
→ Technical Best Practices
Solution is architecturally sound.
Potential performance bottlenecks were considered.
Error handling is robust and user friendly.
No obvious vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, etc.).
Dependencies are well managed.
This simple structure already solves a few key points:
- It forces the author to explain their work and provide test instructions. That alone is a big win.
- It separates the author’s responsibilities from the reviewer’s.
- It guides the reviewer to think beyond “does it work?” and consider maintainability, performance, and security.
One Template Does Not Fit All: Customizing Your Templates
The generic template above is a great start, but the real power comes from adapting it to your specific needs. You would not use the same checklist to fix a typo in documentation and to create a new authentication service.
Consider creating different templates for different contexts. Most Git platforms (GitHub, GitLab, etc.) allow you to create multiple templates and let the PR author choose the right one.
Here are some ideas:
The Template for Frontend Components
When you are developing a new React or Vue component, the concerns are different. You can create a PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE_FRONTEND.md.
Component Checklist (Frontend)
Accessibility (a11y):
Is the component keyboard navigable?
Does it use the correct ARIA attributes?
Was it tested with a screen reader?
Reusability:
Is the component API clear and flexible?
Is it decoupled from business logic?
State Management:
Does it manage its own state correctly?
Does it integrate properly with the global store (for example Redux or Pinia)?
Styling:
Does it follow the team’s design system?
Are styles properly scoped to avoid conflicts?
2. Backend Service Checklist
API Contract:
Does the endpoint follow the OpenAPI or Swagger specification?
Are request and response formats correct?
Database:
Are queries efficient and safe?
Are indexes used when necessary?
Is there a reversible migration script?
Error Handling:
Are status codes (400, 404, 500) correct?
Do error messages provide enough context?
Observability:
Were metrics, logs, and traces added to monitor the service?
3. The Template for Quick Fixes
1. Description
-
Briefly explains what the change does.
-
May 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 goal is not to create a template for every possible scenario. It is to recognize that different types of work have different risk profiles and require different levels of analysis.
To Wrap Up
In the end, a template does not make the review perfect, but it makes the process more stable. It reduces variation between reviewers, decreases rework, and prevents basic points from slipping just because someone was in a hurry or tired.
The idea is not to make anything rigid. It is to give the team a minimum structure so the review becomes clearer for the person writing and more straightforward for the person reviewing. When that happens, the workflow becomes lighter and the team can focus on the decisions that really matter.
If it makes sense for your team, start small. Put a simple template in place, see how the team reacts, and adjust as needed. The value comes from constant use, not from a perfect template.
