Summary of "Better Code Reviews in 6 SIMPLE STEPS"

High-level summary

This is a practical guide (presented as “six steps”) for making code reviews faster, less painful, and more effective. Reviews must be purposeful and organized — otherwise they block delivery and add waste.

Core message: decide why you’re reviewing, then choose when, who, where, what to look for and how to run the review. Automate everything you can, keep reviews small, and make feedback timely, constructive and actionable so code can be merged and shipped.

The six steps (condensed)

1. Define the Why (purpose)

Possible goals:
- Enforce standards (formatting, coverage).
- Find bugs — but rely on automated tests and static analysis for most catches.
- Validate tests against requirements.
- Ensure readability (especially important for junior engineers).
- Share knowledge and collaborate on design.
Different goals require different review focus and timing.

2. Decide When

During implementation: for design collaboration (pairing is especially helpful).
Gateway reviews at merge time: for sign-off and final checks.
Post-merge reviews: acceptable when the goal is knowledge-sharing and tests/automation already provide confidence.
Define clear exit criteria for when a review is complete (who signs off, what counts as resolved).

3. Decide Who

Options:
- A fixed reviewer (single gatekeeper).
- A rotating pool of reviewers.
- A mix of senior and junior reviewers to balance expertise and learning.
Define who can approve or deny changes and how to resolve deadlocks (committee vs single approver vs veto rules).
Balance expertise needs with knowledge-sharing goals.

4. Decide Where / How (format & tooling)

Pair-programming: real-time review, often eliminating formal PR review overhead.
Collocated teams: side-by-side walkthroughs or mob reviews.
Remote teams: screen sharing, pairing tools (example: Topple), Slack/Zoom.
Asynchronous reviews: IDE/PR-based workflows using GitHub pull requests or GitLab merge requests; record comments in the tool.
Use tools and formats appropriate for your team’s location and collaboration style.

5. Decide What to Look For

Avoid duplicating automatable checks (formatting, static analysis, build/tests).
Focus human attention on:
- Domain-specific gotchas and correctness vs requirements.
- Readability and clarity of intent.
- Design choices and trade-offs.
- Test adequacy (do tests verify the intended behavior?).
- Knowledge transfer and teaching moments.
Tailor checklists to the review’s purpose to prevent reviewer overwhelm.

6. Decide How to Run the Review (mechanics & etiquette)

Automate pre-checks: formatting, static analysis, CI tests, deploy/test where possible.
Keep reviews small — large PRs are painful and slow.
Annotate PRs with clear descriptions and callouts for unusual patterns or trade-offs.
Respond quickly; avoid long delays between author and reviewer.
Give constructive, respectful feedback and use positive reinforcement when appropriate.
Make comments specific and prioritized (e.g., showstopper / question / nitpick) so authors know what must change vs optional suggestions.
Prefer “accept with required fixes” or “raise concerns” rather than blunt rejection; if rejecting, list the required fixes.
Once accepted, merge quickly and ensure next steps and responsibilities are clear.

Practical tips & recommended behaviors

Automate everything you can so human time focuses on unautomatable aspects.
Use pairing or real-time review to eliminate much overhead.
Review small, focused changes frequently rather than huge PRs occasionally.
Use PR descriptions and inline notes to reduce reviewer context switching.
Close and merge reviews promptly after resolution to avoid stale work.
Preserve knowledge-sharing intent: reviews are as much for learning as for gatekeeping.

Tools, products and sponsors mentioned

Code review / collaboration tools:
- GitHub (pull requests)
- GitLab (merge requests)
- Slack / Zoom (screen sharing)
- Topple (pair-programming tool)
Automation & developer tooling:
- Static analysis tools
- Formatting tools
- CI / test frameworks
Sponsors and other vendors referenced:
- Equal Experts (consultancy)
- Transiq / Transic (financial/low-latency trading technology — subtitle name may vary)
- Topple (pairing tool)
- Honeycomb (observability for production systems)
- Visual Assist (Visual Studio productivity plugin)
Historical reference: a series of JetBrains blog posts on code review topics was also mentioned.

Main speaker / sources

Speaker: Trisha G (continuous delivery channel)
Sponsors / referenced companies: Equal Experts, Transic/Transiq, Topple, Honeycomb, Visual Assist
Also referenced: JetBrains blog posts (author’s earlier writings)