Anti-patterns for code review

Infrequent code reviews: Skipping or only occasionally performing code reviews misses opportunities to catch errors early and can lead to isolated development work. For higher quality code, faster error detection, incorporation of additional perspectives, and sharing knowledge, regularly schedule code reviews and make them a mandatory step before merging.

Excessive required reviewers: Overloading the review process by involving too many reviewers can lead to bottlenecks and unwarranted delays. Define a practical number of reviewers based on the complexity and criticality of the code changes.

Lack of automated feedback: Neglecting automated tools extends the review duration by requiring peers to focus on trivial issues rather than complex logic. Automated quality assurance and feedback mechanisms can help ensure consistent and efficient code review by catching common issues and providing feedback before manual review. Incorporate automated code review tools to complement manual, human-driven reviews. While automated tools can help catch certain issues, relying too heavily on them can lead to a false sense of security and miss issues that require human judgment. Find a balance that meets the needs of the organization and team preferences.

Large batch reviews: Combining multiple code changes into a single request clutters and lead to a longer review cycle. Including multiple changes, especially if they are unrelated, into a single review makes it more difficult to identify and address issues with individual changes. Submit smaller, more focused pull requests to keep reviews concise and enable a faster feedback loop.

Unconstructive reviews: Code reviews which are lead with harsh or hostile tones or include unhelpful or vague feedback can create an environment leading to unconstructive reviews. These unconstructive reviews demoralize developers,  prevent open dialogue, and impede development progress. Maintain a positive review culture by training reviewers to offer clear, constructive feedback, emphasizing the importance of specificity and positive tone. Implement healthy escalation methods and establish team norms to address and resolve disputes as they arise.

Lack of action on findings: Code review findings that are not acted upon or followed up on can lead to missed opportunities for improvement and perpetuate the same issues in future code changes. Unaddressed feedback makes the review process redundant. Ensure a system where feedback is tracked, and necessary actions are taken promptly.