If you lead an engineering team, you’ve probably seen this before: stuck PRs, delayed deploys because no one reviewed the code, and a growing pile of changes waiting for approval. Code review, which should help ensure quality, often becomes a bottleneck—and worse, sometimes no one even notices until it’s too late. This article is an invitation to take a closer look at your review process. Not just to unblock deliveries, but to turn reviews into a tool for productivity and technical alignment.
How to Tell If Your Review Process Is Getting in the Way
Figuring out if reviews are slowing your team down isn’t just about metrics. It’s about observing the daily routine, spotting frustration, noticing PRs sitting idle, and picking up on feedback that adds no value. Here are some things to watch out for:
PRs Taking Too Long to Get Feedback
If a PR sits untouched for more than 24 hours, the chances of it becoming a blocker grow fast. The dev loses context, moves on to another task, and by the time feedback comes in, getting back into the code is already costly.
Time Until First Comment
Waiting hours—or days—for someone to say “I’ll review it today” is the kind of friction that quietly kills momentum. Teams that manage this well keep things flowing. Studies have shown this is one of the clearest signs of a high-performing team.
PR Backlog
When PRs start piling up and no one’s keeping up, the team goes into reactive mode. This is even more common in larger squads or when there’s a lot of team rotation. At that point, review stops being a quality step and turns into just another box to tick.
Superficial or Auto-Pilot Feedback
If reviewers drop a “LGTM” without looking or just repeat what the linter already flagged, the process loses its value. Reviews need to be technical, direct, and contextual. Otherwise, they’re just noise.
How Much Time Are You Spending on Reviews?
The Cost (Visible and Invisible)
Reviewing code takes time—and that’s okay. But when the process is disorganized, that time turns into waste. The issue isn’t the effort; it’s when the effort doesn’t come back as value.
Studies show devs spend an average of 6 to 7 hours per week reviewing PRs. A big chunk of that goes into oversized PRs, long waits, or PRs that no one picks up for days.
Another trap is PR size. Once you cross 400 lines, reviewing becomes a slog. It demands too much attention, increases the risk of missing bugs, and often derails into long discussions. Smaller PRs (under 85 lines) get reviewed faster and with better feedback.
But Is That Time Worth It?
Absolutely. When used well, review time can save dozens of hours down the line. It’s where the team syncs up, catches issues early, and shares context with new devs.
Some teams have cut rework by 50% just by improving the review process—and saved tens of thousands in engineering hours. Not by reviewing more, but by reviewing better.
Is Code Review Still Worth It in 2025?
With AI helping write code, is it still worth investing time in reviewing it?
Yes. And now more than ever.
AI speeds up code writing, but it also introduces risks: subtle bugs, broken standards, and solutions that don’t quite fit the system. A lot of teams are approving AI-generated code without proper review—and it’s catching up to them in production.
Review is still where you make sure the code actually fits the product, the technical direction, and your team’s standards.
And here’s the thing: AI also plays a key role in code review. When used right, it takes care of the repetitive stuff and lets the team focus on what truly needs human analysis. That’s exactly the kind of balance high-performing teams are going after.
How to Optimize Your Review Process Without Slowing the Team
Good review isn’t about being fast or strict. It’s about making sense. Here are a few things that help:
- Keep PRs small. Under 85 lines makes them easier to read and easier to comment on. Better three small PRs than one with 500 lines.
- Set internal SLAs. You don’t need hard rules, but having a norm like “review starts within 1 business day” solves a lot of review pileups.
- Automate the repetitive stuff. Linting, formatting, and obvious errors? Let tools like Kody handle it. Save your team’s brainpower for the real technical discussion.
- Track the right metrics. Time until first comment, total PR lifetime, average PR size—this data helps you improve the process without guessing.
- Avoid too many reviewers by default. If two reviewers are slow to respond, try assigning one and looping in others only when needed. The goal is to keep things moving.
- Good feedback is direct and useful. No fluff. Focus on decisions, clarity, and technical context. It improves the code and the team at the same time.
Quick Check: Is Your Review Process Healthy?
Before you go, here’s a simple checklist you can use with your team. The first three items are the most critical—if they’re off, it’s already a warning sign:
✅ What’s the average time between opening a PR and the first comment?
If it’s often more than one business day, you probably have an attention bottleneck.
✅ How many days, on average, does it take to merge a PR?
The longer it takes, the higher the risk of context switching and blocked work.
✅ What’s the average PR size?
Oversized PRs are harder to review properly. Aim for under 85 lines when possible.
◻️ Did any PR stay open for more than 3 days last week? Why?
Check if it was due to technical blockers, no reviewer, or lack of prioritization.
◻️ Is the team learning from reviews, or just checking a box?
If it’s “just routine,” you’re missing a big opportunity to build technical alignment.
◻️ Is review part of the sprint, or something pushed to the end?
If review is always an afterthought, it becomes a silent blocker.
If three or more answers made you uncomfortable, it’s probably time to review your review.
Final Thoughts
Code review isn’t just about catching bugs. It’s where the team builds consistency, shares ownership, and prevents future headaches.
If your process feels slow, bureaucratic, or ineffective—it’s fixable. And you don’t need a full revamp. Small changes in PR size, response time, and how feedback is given can make a huge difference.
Start small. Pick one metric, talk it over with the team, and experiment with a change next sprint. You’ll be surprised by the impact.
