The better a team handles code reviews, the more efficient they become, delivering value faster and fostering developer well-being. But what makes Pull Requests (PRs) easier to review? There are a few key factors that directly impact this, and that’s what we’ll explore today.
1. PR Size / Number of Changes
This one is obvious but often overlooked. The size of a Pull Requests—the number of changes made in a single PR—has a direct impact on the cognitive load of the reviewer. The larger the PR, the harder it becomes to understand the context, spot issues, and ensure code quality.
The general rule is to keep PRs small and focused. Studies show that PRs with fewer than 50 lines of code are more likely to be reviewed quickly and accepted with fewer rejections. Teams that consistently keep their PRs small report up to a 40% increase in delivery speed to production.
If you’re struggling with code reviews, the first step might be to look at the size of your PRs. Ask yourself: can this PR be split into smaller parts? If yes, do it! Small PRs not only speed up the review process but also reduce reviewer frustration.
2. Quality of Change Descriptions
Another aspect that often doesn’t get the attention it deserves is the PR description. A well-written description makes a huge difference in review efficiency. It should include:
- Reason for the change: Why is this change being made? What problem does it solve?
- What’s being changed: What parts of the system are affected?
- Breaking changes: Are there any compatibility issues the team should know about?
When reviewers receive a PR with a clear description, they can quickly understand the context and goals of the change, making the review smoother and reducing the chances of miscommunication.
Think of the description as a guide for the reviewer. It should be clear and to the point. If you can’t easily recall what you did and why, imagine how hard it’ll be for someone who wasn’t involved in the implementation from the start.
3. Commit History
The commit history also plays a big role in making PRs easier to review. Pull Requests with too many commits can be hard to follow, often containing intermediate changes that are no longer relevant or have already been fixed.
A good practice is to keep a clean and concise commit history. Before opening a PR, try squashing commits to group related changes and remove those that don’t add value (like “bug fix” or “quick adjustment”). Also, write clear commit messages—concise and descriptive messages help reviewers understand the changes and make the process more transparent.
A solid commit history is like a detailed log of the thought process behind the changes. It documents decision-making, ensuring that if something needs to be revisited later, everyone can easily understand what was done and why.
4. Avoid Last-Minute Reviews
Nothing makes a PR harder to review than the pressure of an urgent deadline. When PRs need to be reviewed “yesterday,” they usually don’t get the attention they deserve, leading to missed issues or shallow feedback.
Urgency often results in rushed reviews, where reviewers are more likely to make mistakes or overlook important details.
To avoid this, it’s essential to prioritize organization and planning. Anticipate needs and make sure PRs are opened early enough to be reviewed calmly. Clear communication within the team also helps reduce last-minute reviews, ensuring everyone is aligned on priorities and timelines.
If an urgent PR is unavoidable, make it as easy as possible to review. Include a clear description, break it into smaller parts if you can, and talk directly with the reviewer so they understand the urgency. But remember—last-minute reviews should be the exception, not the norm.
5. Small, Frequent PRs vs. Big, Infrequent PRs
There’s an ongoing debate about PR size and frequency. Both approaches have their pros and cons, but in most cases, smaller and more frequent PRs are better than large, infrequent ones.
Small PRs are easier to review because they contain fewer changes, reducing the effort required from the reviewer. They also allow for faster feedback, contributing to a more agile development cycle. Quick reviews mean changes can be merged into the main codebase sooner, lowering the risk of complex merge conflicts.
On the other hand, large PRs often bundle many changes, making them harder to understand as a whole. They increase the risk of merge conflicts and can make the review process longer and more exhausting. The chances of missing an issue or unexpected impact also go up with larger Pull Requests.
Small, frequent PRs encourage a culture of continuous delivery and incremental improvement. They promote an approach where each small change is validated and integrated quickly, making it easier to adapt to new information or changing requirements. Also, when each PR contains a specific, isolated change, it’s easier to track down and fix problems if something goes wrong.
Of course, there are times when big PRs are necessary, such as during major refactoring or when introducing a significant new feature. In those cases, transparency and communication within the team are critical. Break the PR into logical, well-documented commits, and consider doing partial or pair reviews to make the process smoother.
Ultimately, the key is to find a healthy balance. Ideally, teams should aim for small, frequent PRs whenever possible, but they should also be prepared to handle larger PRs in an organized and thoughtful way when needed.
Making Pull Requests Reviews Easier
A good Pull Requests makes the review process smooth, efficient, and positive for everyone involved. To achieve that, focus on the size of the changes, the quality of the descriptions, the clarity of the commits, and empathetic collaboration between developers and reviewers.
Keeping PRs small, well-described, and with a clean commit history not only makes reviews easier but also improves the quality of the delivered software. Over time, these practices become part of the team’s culture, bringing benefits that go beyond just productivity—they help create a healthier and more collaborative work environment.
If you’re struggling with code reviews, take a moment to look at your current PRs. Is there anything that could be split or better described? Small adjustments can make a big difference in your team’s efficiency and the quality of the delivered code.
I hope these tips help you make the review process lighter and more effective. After all, a good code review isn’t just about finding bugs—it’s about learning, collaborating, and building the best software possible.
