Code Review in Remote Teams

Update: this was cross-posted to the Hypothesis blog.

This is a write-up of some research that I did for a session with our dev team at Hypothesis about how to make our code reviews a more pleasant and empowering experience for everyone. Links to sources are sprinkled throughout the text, and you can also find links to all of the sources I used (and more) in my code review links on Pinboard. Also thanks to our engineering manager Lena for suggestions.

We’re a fully remote team at Hypothesis, so all communication goes over the Internet and a lot of it happens asynchronously. We use Trello cards to specify features, we write code alone, we send GitHub pull requests, and we use GitHub’s pull request review feature to send written code reviews. This can be very different from face-to-face code reviews in an office, or even from remote code reviews over video chat.

If taken lightly, this kind of written, asynchronous code review can be a recipe for disaster where negative communication and collaboration patterns are concerned. But if the team takes an active interest in doing it well, then I think it can work very effectively.

What are code reviews for?

Before discussing how and how not to do code reviews it’ll be useful to think about what code reviews are for in your organization so that the do’s and don’ts that follow can be assessed against these aims. I think it’s also good to remember that code reviews aren’t just about finding bugs and code design issues.

The point that I want to make here is that code reviews are for improving code quality and morale.

Code review is one of the main ways that developers interact with each other during a normal working day, so it needs to be an uplifting experience that developers look forward to and that all participants actively want to take part in. If code review is often an unpleasant experience morale will suffer.

Here are some aims to consider when doing a code review:


This long list of bad behaviours may feel a bit negative, but honestly, this is meant to be a positive post, and when you get through this section there’s a long list of do’s to follow! There are many ways to make a code review unpleasant by doing the wrong things, so I think knowing what not to do is a good place to start. Combative, unkind and unpredictable code reviews can make developers unhappy and can make the job emotionally difficult to do.

“Understanding what to avoid in code review can mean the difference between your review being a valuable part of your team’s delivery and your review simply being cruel and unusual punishment.” Erik Dietrich: What To Avoid When Doing Code Reviews

Don’t just do the direct and minimal code review

(a.k.a. find out how much you suck)

Don’t just be straight and minimal, simply pointing out the things that are wrong with the code, saying what you want to be changed, and nothing more.

Developers spend a lot of time on and take pride in their code, and code review is the chance for them to showcase that. With this kind of direct and minimal code review the best result that the author can hope for is no comments: “LGTM, merged.” The code review might as well be titled find out how badly people think you suck.

Blunt and unfiltered communication carries a long-term cost. It can poison the team’s communication culture and hit developer productivity. The developer on the receiving end of lots of code reviews like this “often feels like it’s a bashing session designed to beat out their will”, and code reviews can become “mental jousting matches where people take shots at a target … the developer that wrote the code”.

Don’t think that “criticize the code, not the coder” is enough

“Criticize the code, not the coder” is probably the most well known advice about how to do code reviews. It’s good advice (if you’re criticizing your teammates as people, rather than talking about the code, you’ve got a problem). But it’s not enough. Code is creative work that developers put their heart and soul into and harshly or bluntly criticizing someone’s code is tantamount to criticizing them. You have to do better, and find a more positive way to deconstruct and make suggestions about code.

Watch your tone

Don’t use personal tone when criticizing. Phrases like “Why have you … ?” etc feel like attacks. Instead of saying “The way you’ve written this function makes it hard to read, add more code comments” (which is quite personal and implies that the person has done something wrong), say “Do you think that adding more code comments would make this function easier to read?” (which gives the author back their agency, and focuses on what they can do to improve the code).

Don’t use demanding or challenging language. Avoid phrases whose meaning comes across as “you are wrong.” Don’t tell people that they’re wrong, or that what they’ve said is invalid, because it can make them feel under attack. If they feel under attack, people can become defensive, can’t engage creatively any longer, and stop learning. Avoid phrases like:

Don’t use hyperbole when making criticisms. You don’t want the coder to feel offended because they feel that your criticisms of their code are unjustified or exaggerated. Avoid unnecessary words like “always”, “never”, “endlessly”, and “nothing” in criticisms.

Don’t use insulting language. Avoid “accidental insults” by not using words like “dumb” or “stupid” in code reviews, even though you don’t intend them as insults. This kind of language carries contexts and associations and can set the frame of mind of the person receiving it.

Don’t use impatient or passive-aggressive language. Always keep it patient and friendly, avoid unpleasant phrases that show irritability and make people feel like they’re not doing good enough:

Don’t pile on. It can make someone feel attacked if they’re given a critical comment by one colleague, and then one or more further colleagues +1 the comment or jump in with critical comments of their own. Multiple critics can also be confusing and create a “too many chefs” problem.

Don’t be a back-seat coder

This means holding off, and not requesting many of the code changes that you may be tempted to request. Feedback that asks for too many changes and feels like a rewrite can be demoralizing, so consider your suggestions carefully and pick the best ones.

Yes, one of the aims of code review is to find and correct bugs and design issues with the code. But don’t use code review to try to get the author to rewrite the code to the way you would have written it yourself. Remember that many things in software are a matter of opinion, multiple solutions that each have their pros and cons. For each “correction” that you want to suggest ask yourself whether it might be just a difference of opinion? In cases where the author has considered different solutions and chosen one solution for a reason, consider empowering the coder and respecting their right to make that decision.

“Although the developer might have coded something differently from how you would have, it isn’t necessarily wrong. The goal is quality, maintainable code. If it meets those goals and follows the coding standards, that’s all you can ask for.” Robert Bogue: Effective Code Reviews Without the Pain

“You’re never going to beat someone into writing the exact code that you would have, and it’s counterproductive to try. (Honestly, you should have just written the code yourself in the first place if that’s your attitude.)” Erik Dietrich: What To Avoid When Doing Code Reviews

Don’t break the rule of no surprises

Do not violate the rule of no surprises. Have a shared, documented agreement up front about pull request expectations and standards, and make reviews evidence-based not opinion-based.

Don’t say things just to hear the sound of your own voice

Before giving feedback think about what you’re aiming to achieve by doing so and think about whether each comment is necessary. Remember that you’re trying to constructively help, not trying to make a point. When writing a code review I go back and review my comments before posting them, asking myself whether each comment is really helpful or necessary, and end up deleting many of my comments before posting the review. Reviewing your comments post hoc can make this easier. While you’re deep in the code, working to understand it and to develop your thoughts on it, you can write down as many comments as you please. After, you can decide what you actually want to send to the coder.

“Well-actually-ing just for the sake of being right isn’t always helpful (or appreciated), and sometimes keeping that kind of feedback to yourself can be beneficial for the sake of your long-term relationship with a person.” Katherine Daniels: On Giving and Receiving Feedback

Don’t think that you have to find a problem in every code review

If the code is good and can be merged without any changes, that’s fine!


It doesn’t have to be this way! Below are some of my favourite suggestions, collected from around the Internet, about how to turn code reviews around and make them into a positive, collaborative experience.

Praise good code

Remember to spend plenty of time praising what is good about the code, before pointing out problems and making suggestions.

“Human nature is such that we want and need to be acknowledged for our successes, not just shown our faults. Because development is necessarily a creative work that developers pour their soul into, it often can be close to their hearts. This makes the need for praise even more critical.” Robert Bogue: Effective Code Reviews Without the Pain

You want people to look forward to code review as a positive and constructive experience and not fear it as pure criticism. Positive feedback also relieves interpersonal tensions and helps people to respond better to any critical feedback.

The hard part is to find a way to give positive comments without making them seem like fluff or fake praise, or obvious shit sandwich constructions.

Avoid the backhanded compliment, phrases like “Great job, but…” (followed by all the changes that you want to be made) can seem insincere.

Some ways to give more natural, sincere and concrete praise:

Put a positive summary at the top

Set the mood by indicating, in a positive summary statement at the top of your review, that you’re happy and thankful for the code. GitHub’s new code review features make this a lot easier by letting you write multiple line comments and then post them all at once (rather than each comment being posted as soon as you save it), and by letting you add a summary (which appears the top of your review) before posting the comments:

Avoid inherent accusations

Ask, don’t tell. Ask questions rather than making statements:

“A statement is accusatory. “You didn’t follow the standard here” is an attack—whether intentional or not. The question, “What was the reasoning behind the approach you used?” is seeking more information.” Robert Bogue: Effective Code Reviews Without the Pain

Asking questions instead will improve the mood, change the tone of the following conversation by opening the door for dialogue and learning, and encourage the developer to explain their reasoning or ask themselves whether there’s a better way.

Ideally, if there is a bug in the code then it will be found by the author themselves in response to prompting by question asking, or if there is an improvement to be made to the code, it will be suggested by the author.

“If you see things that could be errors, you don’t need to tell people they’re wrong, usually a “what do you think would happen if I passed null into this method” would suffice because the person will probably say, “oh, I didn’t think of that — I’ll fix it when we’re done here.” Allowing them to solve the problem and propose the improvement is empowering and so, so much better than giving them orders to fix their deficient code.” Erik Dietrich: How to Use a Code Review to Execute Someone’s Soul



Avoid the accusatory why. Like statements, “why” questions can also be accusatory as well, and avoiding them can improve the mood.



Be humble

Ask questions, don’t make demands. Rather than just telling the code author to make a change that you want, ask them a question about their code or make a suggestion and ask them whether they think it would be an improvement. This puts the ball in their court and respects the author’s agency, giving them a chance to explain their decisions or to decide whether they think a suggestion is an improvement.

“Instead of saying “Let’s call that variable userName because it’s unclear”, phrase your suggestion as a question, like so:

“What do you think about naming this userName? The current name felt unclear to me because it’s also used in another context in someotherfile.js.” Daniel Bader: 7 ways to avoid aggravation in code reviews

When making a suggestion, also give the reason why you think this change might be an improvement.

Use personal examples. Let the code author know that they’re not the only person ever to make this mistake. This can be a great way to make criticism more comfortable: “I learned this the hard way…”, or “I used to do the same thing…”

Agree that not every question needs to be responded to. Make an upfront agreement that not every question needs to be responded to. This lets you include thought-provoking questions in your review that don’t necessarily need to be resolved or even responded to in order to get the code merged, but that can nonetheless get developers thinking and improve the quality of the entire codebase in the long run.

Don’t break The Rule of No Surprises

Use checklists:

“It’s very likely that each person on your team makes the same 10 mistakes over and over. Omissions in particular are the hardest defects to find because it’s difficult to review something that isn’t there. Checklists are the most effective way to eliminate frequently made errors and to combat the challenges of omission finding.” SmartBear: Best Practices for Code Review

Even though it can’t cover everything, a good checklist of what a pull request should have before it can be merged / what a reviewer should be looking for when reviewing a pull request is a useful tool for both the coder and the reviewer. A checklist can mean better and more consistent code quality and can help to avoid breaking the rule of no surprises. Documenting what’s expected is particularly useful for new team members sending their first pull requests and doing their first code reviews.

Here’s an example to get you started:

Have comprehensive documented coding standards:

Coding standards are a “shared agreement that the developers have with one another”, a shared set of guidelines with buy-in from everyone, about what makes quality, maintainable code in this organization. Coding standards are the foundation of code review (the coding standards are the standards that you’re reviewing the code against). Rather than bringing up requirements that aren’t in your coding standards, send a pull request to get them added to the standards instead.

Without the shared project of coding standards as a reference, developers can find themselves not knowing where the next problem will come from in code review. This doesn’t empower developers to contribute effectively.

The coding standards should be comprehensive. PEP 8 is a code formatting style, it’s not a complete enough standard for code review.

Review the right things and let tools do the rest

Code formatting issues should almost never come up during a code review. Code reviews should provoke productive thoughts and discussions, and spending too much time on code style and formatting won’t help with that. Use tools such as linters and code formatters instead.


This post has been about how to give positive feedback as well as making criticisms, and about how to make suggestions successfully when doing code reviews. My suggestion for what to do with this for our dev team at Hypothesis, and any other team interested in doing more effective code reviews, is to make a concise, bullet point version of this guide and adopt it as the team’s “how to do a code review”. Put it in a git repo that team members can open issues on and send pull requests to, so that the how-to becomes a shared collaboration.

Beyond what happens at code review time, I think it’s also worth thinking about how the code that’s being reviewed gets created in the first place. I think you want the coder and the reviewer to be largely synchronized on what the technical design for a feature is going to be before any code makes it into review. Know who the coder and reviewer for a feature are going to be beforehand, and encourage them to work as a team of two to deliver the feature, discussing code designs and intermediate versions of the code before it makes it to the final review. The aim is to get better code designs (two heads are better than one), but also to avoid having a debate at review time between two completely different solutions (one of which would require a rewrite of the already written code).

If there has already been plenty of collaboration between the coder and the reviewer before code review time then there’ll likely be fewer issues that need to be raised in review, so you’re already off to a good start.