Looks GREAT To Me: Getting Past Bare Minimum Code Reviews
summary
Argues that “LGTM” often masks rushed reviews and gives concrete fixes: reviewers must use 25–45 minute review bursts, write objective comments with the Triple R pattern (request, rationale, result), and refuse oversized PRs; authors must run linting, static analysis and tests pre‑PR, make changes under 500 lines and split features so reviews finish in 10–20 minutes and under ~20 files. Recommends PR templates, code‑owners/auto‑assign and informational reviewers; ties improvements to DORA metrics like change‑failure rate.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (6)
- 0:00The problem with code reviews
- 2:31Common reviewer mistakes
- 10:14Common author mistakes
- 16:40How to give effective feedback
- 21:25Best practices for authors
- 27:36Team agreements and metrics
related talks
32m👍 Looks GREAT To Me: Getting Past Bare Minimum Code Reviews
46mLooks GREAT To Me: Getting Past Bare Minimum Code Reviews
49mBetter Code Reviews FTW!
47mIt Takes More Than LGTM to Do A Proper Code Review
17mThe Perfect Code Review
23mDrama-Free Code Review!
44mCracking the Code Review
01h 05mGetting Good (or Better) at Code Reviews
