DEV Community

Cover image for When Code Reviews Go Too Far: Finding the Balance Between Quality and Velocity
Amna Anwar for PullFlow

Posted on • Originally published at pullflow.com

3 2 2 2 2

When Code Reviews Go Too Far: Finding the Balance Between Quality and Velocity

Introduction

Code reviews are meant to improve code quality, foster knowledge sharing, and build strong engineering culture. But sometimes, they go too far.

You fix a critical bug in five lines, push the PR… and wait. Days go by. Dozens of comments pile in about naming, unrelated refactors, and philosophical disagreements. Meanwhile, users are still impacted.

It's time to talk about where things go wrong and how to bring balance back.

The Problem: When Reviews Block Progress ⛔

The original purpose of code reviews is being overshadowed by over-engineering and perfectionism. Common symptoms include:

  • Overlong delays on small PRs
  • Reviewers blocking for non-functional issues
  • Burnout from endless iterations

This friction slows teams, frustrates developers, and delays shipping value.

5 Ways Code Reviews Go Too Far 🚩

1. Perfectionism Paralysis 🔍

Excessive nitpicking on naming, formatting, or micro-optimizations while missing critical logic issues makes the review process counterproductive. These small details can often be handled by automation.

2. Scope Creep During Review 📈

What started as a simple bug fix becomes a major refactoring effort because reviewers keep adding "nice-to-haves" during the review process. This extends timelines and introduces new risks.

3. Analysis Paralysis 🔄

When multiple reviewers provide contradictory feedback, authors can become stuck in an endless loop of revisions. Without clear decision-making processes, PRs remain open indefinitely.

4. The Kitchen Sink Reviewer 🧰

Some reviewers feel obligated to comment on every aspect of a PR, regardless of the scope. This overwhelms authors and obscures truly important feedback.

5. Standards Without Context 📏

Applying the same strict standards to experimental code or emergency fixes as to core production systems creates unnecessary friction. Different types of changes warrant different levels of scrutiny.

When developers face an exhaustive review process, they delay submitting work or batch changes into massive PRs. Junior team members become particularly discouraged when faced with overwhelming criticism. Meanwhile, critical fixes delayed by days or weeks impact users and damage trust, while features sitting in review queues represent lost market opportunities.

How to Bring Back Balance in Code Reviews ⚖️

Risk-Based Review Intensity 🎯

Not all code changes are equal. Calibrate review intensity based on risk, impact, and complexity.

Time-Boxing and SLAs ⏱️

Establish clear timeframes for reviews and processes for handling delays. Train reviewers to distinguish between blocking issues and suggestions for future improvement.

Clear Review Guidelines 📋

Define what constitutes a blocker versus a nice-to-have. When should suggestions be deferred to future PRs? Having these conversations proactively reduces review friction.

Build the Right Culture 🏗️

Foster a culture where improvement is continuous rather than blocking. Teams should understand that shipped code is better than perfect code sitting in a PR.

Tools and Techniques That Help 🛠️

Automation First 🤖

Let machines handle style, formatting, and common errors. This allows human reviewers to focus on logic and architecture.

AI Reviewer Tools 🧠

AI tools can speed up first-pass reviews by suggesting improvements, summarizing PRs, and flagging potential issues, freeing human reviewers to focus on strategic concerns.

Review Templates & Checklists ✅

Templates create structure and consistency. Different templates can focus on different aspects depending on the type of change.

Sync When Needed 💬

Sometimes a 15-minute call can resolve what would otherwise be days of back-and-forth comments. Don't be afraid to move complex discussions offline.

A good code review culture isn't about catching everything; it's about catching what matters.

The best code reviews serve as guardrails, not roadblocks. They protect the codebase while enabling teams to move quickly and confidently.

Remember: the ultimate goal isn't perfect code, but rather delivering value to users while maintaining a sustainable, evolving codebase. Finding the right balance means continually reflecting on your team's review process and being willing to adjust when things start slowing down rather than speeding up.

How PullFlow Can Help 🚀

PullFlow, the first collaboration platform for co-intelligent (human + AI) software teams, directly addresses these code review challenges.

By combining human expertise with AI capabilities, PullFlow helps teams unlock up to 4X productivity through seamless cross-functional collaboration.

Try PullFlow Today

Ready to transform your code review process? Visit pullflow.com to learn how our platform can help your human+AI team find the perfect balance between quality and velocity.

Warp.dev image

Warp is the #1 coding agent.

Warp outperforms every other coding agent on the market, and gives you full control over which model you use. Get started now for free, or upgrade and unlock 2.5x AI credits on Warp's paid plans.

Download Warp

Top comments (6)

Collapse
 
richmirks profile image
Richard Mirks

I really appreciate your unique perspective on this common problem. It's refreshing to see such a balanced approach to code reviews—especially your ideas for keeping quality high without losing speed. Great insights!

Collapse
 
amnaanwar20 profile image
Amna Anwar

Thanks Richard, really appreciate that. I’ve been thinking a lot about how to keep reviews useful without slowing teams down, so it’s great to hear that came across.

Collapse
 
sevacloud profile image
Liamarjit Bhogal

I support the opinion is that AI only code reviewers are dangerous. The AI most likely lacks the context of the overall business problem being solved and how the change may impact on consuming packages. Sure they can improve velocity but if you just let code get into production that hasn't been looked at by a human, there will be subtle bugs a human engineer gonna have to hunt for. Most likely when the customer comes knocking or pager starts ringing.

Collapse
 
amnaanwar20 profile image
Amna Anwar

Totally agree with you. AI can help speed things up, but I wouldn’t trust it to fully replace human reviewers. There’s just too much context around business logic and edge cases that AI can miss. I see it more as a way to take care of the repetitive stuff so humans can focus on the important parts. Appreciate you bringing this up!

Collapse
 
dotallio profile image
Dotallio

This hits home - I've lost days to nitpicks while urgent bugs sit in limbo. How does your team actually draw the line between blocker and suggestion in practice?

Collapse
 
amnaanwar20 profile image
Amna Anwar

Totally get that. We’ve been through the same, which is why we started being really intentional about this. Anything that affects logic, user-facing behavior, or security is a blocker. Everything else like naming, formatting, or stylistic stuff is treated as a suggestion. We also try to approve with comments unless something actually needs to be fixed before merge. It’s not perfect, but it’s helped us keep things moving.

Scale globally with MongoDB Atlas. Try free.

Scale globally with MongoDB Atlas. Try free.

MongoDB Atlas is the global, multi-cloud database for modern apps trusted by developers and enterprises to build, scale, and run cutting-edge applications, with automated scaling, built-in security, and 125+ cloud regions.

Learn More

👋 Kindness is contagious

Delve into this thought-provoking piece, celebrated by the DEV Community. Coders from every walk are invited to share their insights and strengthen our collective intelligence.

A heartfelt “thank you” can transform someone’s day—leave yours in the comments!

On DEV, knowledge sharing paves our journey and forges strong connections. Found this helpful? A simple thanks to the author means so much.

Get Started