12 Code Review Best Practices:
How to do effective code reviews

Code reviews are a core part of building reliable software. They catch mistakes early and make sure the development team stays coordinated throughout the process.

Systematic approaches to planning and executing reviews improve their productivity. This, in turn, reduces the waiting periods for deployments and creates better interactions among developers for both senior leaders and junior teams. Even then, many teams struggle to establish a productive review routine. So, what are the best practices for code review? And how can we make code reviews efficient and thorough without overwhelming developers?

In this article, we share DevCom’s 12 best practices for code reviews and the strategies we apply for an effective code review.

A code review without clear goals is like navigating without a map. Before review begins, specify what needs to be assessed. Is the priority code quality, security, or performance?

The depth of the review will guide what to look for, so getting the entire team aligned on these goals is key.

For example, if you’re checking updates that impact a payment system, your main focus should be preventing security risks and ensuring stability through solid error handling. In contrast, a review for optimization might zero in on performance or code readability.

Setting expectations from the start keeps the review efficient and respectful. A clear objective is crucial when learning how to conduct code review; having one builds collaboration and reduces back-and-forth. Want to know how to perform a code review that actually helps? Start by asking: “What do we expect to gain from this?”

Oversized code reviews are one of the quickest ways to lose effectiveness. Asking code reviewers to go through too much code at once can result in missed details and burnout. That’s why one key best practice for code review is keeping things small and focused.

If changes affect multiple parts of the codebase, split them into smaller, logical sets. This approach leads to shorter review times, more precise feedback, and faster review speed. Reviewing feature by feature allows reviewers to focus on performance, error handling, and logic without losing context.

Knowing how to code review effectively means knowing how to break down the task. Smaller reviews create shorter review time, better feedback, and fewer delays in development. Using a code review checklist keeps the scope manageable and ensures all critical points are covered evenly in small batches.

This structure also improves code quality. Developers can focus their energy, give clearer suggestions, and avoid cognitive overload. When work is straightforward, results improve. Breaking tasks down helps everyone handle the process more easily. Faster feedback means fewer delays in the project.

Code reviews should help the team grow — not just the code. Respect is key to that process. The goal is to make the codebase stronger while keeping communication open, honest, and supportive. Respectful feedback will always land better and be taken more seriously than harsh critiques.

Saying “You could improve by doing this” is more helpful than “This is wrong.” Phrasing suggestions as “Have you considered trying this?” turns the conversation into a discussion. That tone shows you’re working with someone, not correcting them.

It’s not enough to find a problem. Code reviewers should explain why a fix works better to help developers think more deeply and understand the trade-offs. When learning how to review code, realize the goal is bigger than bugs. Smart code reviews build sharper minds. They bring clarity, real respect, and honest talk.

In time, these habits affect team culture. Blame dies down, sharing grows, and work clicks. Respect isn’t optional — it’s what makes the review process thrive.

Good reviews look beyond just the function; they take the whole system into account. Every piece of code impacts something else, sometimes in ways that only show up later.

Take that SQL query. It might look harmless in dev, but does it scale? How does it behave when a hundred users hit it? And if it relies on an external API, what’s the failure plan? These are the kinds of edge cases that separate surface-level checks from serious reviews.

Strong code reviews come from understanding the big picture. When you’re familiar with the architecture, you can assess risk and performance instead of just whether a loop is efficient.

Always stop and ask: Why was it done this way? Context helps you make better decisions, like whether to recommend changes or trust the intent.

This is where code reviews evolve. They go beyond bugs, and turn into thoughtful, productive discussions.

A steady style makes code more approachable. With uniform naming and formatting, you don’t waste time adjusting to each file — you just get straight to the problem you’re solving. So, when you’re reviewing, look out for those little things. Are variables named clearly and consistently? Does the formatting look familiar? Is the structure predictable? Small details add up.

Questions to be answered at this step:

• Is the variable naming consistent with the project’s conventions?
• Are functions properly structured?

Code that looks and feels consistent is easier to work with. It saves time for new devs, and it stops small differences from becoming real maintenance issues later on. Applying consistent coding standards during reviews is a solid code review best practice because it helps the codebase stay healthy long-term.

It also keeps teams in sync. If everyone’s on the same page, working on or reviewing code gets simpler. No second-guessing what someone meant. That’s one of those good code review practices that really pays off when there are several code reviewers involved.

Spotting problems at the start of a code review helps prevent expensive bugs later. This early detection stops issues from bypassing tests or arising in tricky edge cases. The sooner issues are found, the more time and effort the team saves, and the higher the overall code quality.

It’s important to dig into logic errors and edge cases that might be hiding in plain sight. Keep an eye out for incomplete conditions, flawed error handling, or overlooked scenarios. If missed, these subtle issues can create unpredictable outcomes.

Security checks are equally critical. Code involving logins, sessions, or payments should be examined closely for weak input checks, lack of encryption, or insecure API patterns. Catching these security flaws in review helps prevent data breaches and regulatory trouble.

Addressing problems early builds more secure and reliable applications and encourages sound coding practices. A reliable review checklist adds consistency and structure to the process. Regularly catching issues early not only saves time but also fosters a mindset of responsibility throughout the team.

If it’s hard to read, it’ll be hard to maintain. One of the most important things to look for during a review is how readable the code really is. Bad structure often turns into future bugs or confusing maintenance later on.

Ask yourself: Will someone else know what this does six months from now? Will they know how to use it safely? If the answer is no, it needs cleanup or maybe just a few good comments.

Readable code should be a priority in every review. That means clean formatting, clear naming, and a structure that makes sense. These code review practices are essential, especially when several devs touch the same files over time. Code like that is easier to extend without creating new problems. Readable code also helps new hires settle in faster. If they can follow the logic without having to ask around, everyone saves time. When all’s said and done, readable code helps the whole development process move quicker.

Code gets looked at far more often than it’s initially written. Putting in a bit more effort to make it clear is an investment that makes future work easier and saves everyone time and headaches.

Modular design is crucial for creating software that stays easy to maintain and expand. Writing code in smaller, self-contained units lets each part be tested and fixed without affecting others. When reviewing code, think about breaking down large sections into more manageable modules, as covered in best practice two.

Questions to be answered at this step:

• Are there functions that could be broken into smaller, more focused units?
• Are there pieces of code that are duplicated several times throughout the codebase that can be encapsulated in one reusable header or module?

Finding these chances to organize code better is an important part of a thorough review. This kind of structure makes adding new features easier and helps the system grow steadily.

Modular code also lets developers work on different parts at the same time, which means fewer conflicts when merging and faster delivery overall.

Testing is one of the most important processes in software development, and code review is an excellent opportunity to check that the code has been thoroughly tested.

During the code review, determine whether the test units and integration tests are sufficient to validate the new functionality. Check if the code has been tested to ensure that all edge cases are met. Also, check if there are any tests in place to see whether the new changes will break any existing functionality.

If some code has been poorly tested or lacks test code, the reviewer should recommend that additional testing be done before the job is considered finished. This method significantly improves the quality of the code-updating process and reduces any potential risks.

Testability must also be considered during reviews because test-driven code leads to stable software. False bugs can be found early so small issues do not become big problems later on.

Automated code review tools, code analysis tools, code checkers or collaborative code review tools shorten code review by addressing common problems quickly. Static code reviews include linter tools, as well as other static code analyzers, for the source code. They perform mainly syntax checking along with potential programming defects and deviation from the coding guidelines that usually don’t require manual human effort.

These will perform simple tasks quickly and help experienced reviewers concentrate on complex logic architecture decisions and design patterns. Automation tools help teams move quickly without letting code quality suffer during reviews.

Adding automation to code quality checks boosts productivity and helps keep quality steady from start to finish. Integrating a well-defined review checklist into automated tools further ensures that essential criteria are consistently checked, enhancing both speed and accuracy.

It also promotes uniformity by applying essential rules across all code, reducing human error. This gives code reviewers more time to handle complex problems that require their judgment, which improves both speed and the quality of the code. Properly used review tools also reduce review time significantly.

Code reviews should cover not only lines of code but also the documentation that goes with them. Along with detailed documentation, good review tools help the team by clearly recording comments, updates, and discussion threads. Documentation is critical to ensure future developers and senior engineers understand the code’s purpose, how it works, and any key implementation details.

Questions to be answered at this step:

• Are there clear comments explaining complex or unobvious parts of the code?
• Is there sufficient high-quality and high-level documentation outlining how the code interacts with other systems or features?

Skipping documentation basically sets you up for headaches later. If you don’t address possible issues up front, code gets messy fast. Clear documentation is essential for making code intelligible and maintained, both now and in the future.

Good documentation also makes onboarding easier for new team members so you don’t have to answer the same questions again and again. It prevents critical information from becoming locked in one person’s mind, which is essential for any team — especially when members are coming and departing or working from separate locations. In short, either document as you go or prepare for trouble.

Code reviews are not a one-time activity. Code review practices should be constantly evaluated and improved upon as more time passes and more work to accomplish arises. Process reflection involves examining and critiquing one’s thinking relative to employed code review practices.

Questions to be answered at this step:

• Is the review cycle longer than necessary?
• Are typical problems overlooked?
• Do developers appreciate the review or find it unnecessary?

Improving peer code review will improve the efficiency of the process and encourage the incorporation of team members’ ideas. This ensures the review process is efficient, effective and valuable to all. Building a habit of learning during code reviews can help teams write better software over the long haul.

By asking for team feedback on the review process on a regular basis, teams uncover hidden issues and new ways to get better. When the team feels safe sharing their thoughts, it’s easier to change how reviews are done to fit new project needs and team setups, which leads to ongoing progress and higher quality results.

Now you know how to do a good code review using DevCom’s best practices for code review. This process is not only about finding mistakes; one of the benefits of code reviews is improving the development life cycle as a whole. Adhering to these code review best practices allows for improvement in collaboration and code quality as well as a reduction in the chances of similar problems in the future.

Software code reviews are necessary and effective for the successful development of reliable, expandable and easily supported software systems when performed properly by a code author. Balancing technical correctness with team effort and collaboration, these effective code review techniques set the stage for delivering dependable and adaptable software that can stand the test of time.

Alongside quality checks, code reviews actively contribute to team progress and knowledge sharing. They enable mentorship opportunities, draw attention to areas needing development, and help ensure expertise is accessible to everyone on the team.

Using a well-structured code review checklist throughout the process and paying close attention to test coverage and test code quality are essential elements that can help teams succeed in writing better software faster.