If you’ve ever been stuck waiting for a PR to be reviewed, received vague feedback, or—worse—been trapped in endless review loops, you know that code review can be a massive bottleneck. On paper, it’s an essential practice for ensuring quality and security. In reality? It can feel like pulling the handbrake on productivity.
Here’s the dilemma: if manual code review takes too long, we automate. But does relying entirely on automation actually solve the problem? Or are we just swapping one bottleneck for another? Let’s break this down.
The Dark Side of Manual Code Review
In theory, manual code review sounds great. Experienced engineers review changes, catch subtle mistakes, and ensure everything is up to standard. In practice? It’s chaotic. Here are some hard truths:
1. PRs Get Stuck in the Queue for Days
- The average time for a manual PR review can take between 18 and 30 hours, depending on complexity and reviewer availability.
- In large teams, PRs pile up, leading to significant development delays.
- The feedback cycle is slow: the dev has to switch context to fix an issue pointed out in the review, often days after writing the code.
2. Inconsistent and Subjective Feedback
- A Google study found that 60% of developers have received contradictory feedback from different reviewers, making the process confusing.
- Depending on who reviews the code, the same issue might be flagged differently (or not at all).
- This leads to frustration, rework, and—worse—some developers simply ignoring suggestions altogether.
3. Overloaded Reviewers, Code Review Neglected
- 45% of developers say manual code review takes too much time and hurts their productivity.
- Reviewers juggle multiple contexts and deadlines, making reviews rushed or superficial.
- Slow reviews mean some devs bypass the process entirely, merging unreviewed code.
4. Code Review Can Cause Unnecessary Friction
- “Why does this guy always criticize my code?”
- “This isn’t a bug, it’s just my way of doing things!”
- “If I review his code the same way, he’ll get annoyed.”
- Yes, code review can spark unproductive debates and even damage team morale if not handled well.
Does this mean we should abandon manual code review? No. It’s still crucial for:
✅ Architecture and design evaluation
✅ Knowledge sharing within the team
✅ Ensuring the code actually meets business requirements
But if manual code review has so many issues, how can we make it more efficient?
Automated Code Review
The Rise of Automated Code Review
Automating code review doesn’t mean eliminating humans from the process. It means ensuring that human reviewers only focus on what really matters. The rest? Leave it to the machines.
What Does Automation Solve?
– Instant Feedback: One study found that automated code review tools can cut PR review time from 30 hours to under 90 minutes
– Absolute Consistency: Automation ensures that the same rules are applied to all submitted code. Teams using linters and static analysis tools saw a 37% reduction in inconsistent review feedback
– Less Rework: Teams integrating automated code review report a 25% to 30% reduction in post-merge bugs (DORA State of DevOps Report).
– Scalability: While human reviewers get overloaded, automation can process hundreds of PRs simultaneously.
What Automation Can’t Do
🤔 Determine if the code makes sense within the system’s context.
🤔 Assess whether the solution is the best architectural approach.
🤔 Spot when a small tweak could prevent a future problem.
So, full automation isn’t the answer. The best approach is a hybrid model.
The Best of Both Worlds: Hybrid Review
If you want an efficient code review process, the key is striking the right balance between automation and manual review.
1. Automate What You Can, But Keep Humans in the Loop
🔹 Set up linters, security scanners, and static analysis tools to eliminate trivial issues before manual review.
🔹 Define clear guidelines so that manual review focuses on logic, design, and architecture.
2. Establish an Efficient Review Workflow
🔹 Smaller PRs get reviewed faster and with less friction.
🔹 Set time limits for reviews: if a PR isn’t reviewed within 24 hours, another person picks it up.
🔹 Use metrics to monitor bottlenecks in the review process.
3. Use Metrics to Measure Impact
Average PR Review Time → If PRs are taking days to be reviewed, something is broken.
Suggestion Adoption Rate → Tracking how many feedback suggestions get accepted shows if reviews are actually useful.
Post-Review Bug Count → If issues are slipping through code review, the process needs adjustment.
Conclusion: How to Improve Now
If code review is slowing your team down, chances are there’s an imbalance between manual review and automation. Here are some immediate actions you can take:
- Are PRs taking too long to be reviewed? Automate trivial checks to free up human reviewers.
- Is feedback inconsistent? Define clear standards and document best practices.
- Is your team frustrated? Remove bureaucracy and make the process smoother.
At the end of the day, code review shouldn’t be an obstacle. When well-structured, it speeds up delivery, improves code quality, and reduces team frustration. The secret? Finding the right balance between manual review and automation.
At the end of the day, we all want just three things:
✅ Fast feedback
✅ Better decisions
✅ Less headache for everyone
If your code review process isn’t delivering that, it’s time to fix it.
