Code Review

Keywords: code review, PR review, pull request, diff review, review my changes, approve, request changes.

Review a change for correctness first, quality second. A review is not a formatting pass — it's a search for the ways this diff is wrong or will become wrong. Approve when you'd be comfortable being paged for it at 3am.

Scope the review before reading line-by-line

Don't review the diff in isolation. A diff shows what changed, not whether the change is correct.

Read the description / linked issue. What is this change claiming to do? You're verifying the claim, not just the syntax.
Read the surrounding code, not just the red/green lines. A removed null check looks fine in the diff; whether it's a bug depends on the caller three functions up. Open the files.
Reproduce the claim mentally (or actually). Trace one real input through the new path. If the PR says "fixes the retry loop," follow a failing request through the loop and confirm it now terminates. If you can run it, run it.
Check the tests changed with the code. New behavior with no new test is a finding. A test that passes against both the old and new code tests nothing.

What to actually look for

Go in this order — correctness bugs are worth more than style nits.

Category	Concretely
Logic bugs	Off-by-one, inverted conditions, wrong operator (`&&` vs `\|\|`), `=` vs `==`, swapped args, fallthrough.
Edge cases	Empty list/string, zero, negative, `null`/`None`/`undefined`, single element, max size, duplicate keys, unicode.
Error handling	Swallowed exceptions, ignored return/error values, partial failure leaving inconsistent state, no cleanup on the error path, error message that loses the cause.
Concurrency	Shared mutable state without a lock, check-then-act (TOCTOU), non-atomic read-modify-write, missing `await`, deadlock-prone lock ordering, assuming callback order.
Resource safety	Leaked file/socket/connection, missing `close`/`defer`/`finally`/context manager, unbounded growth (caches, queues).
API misuse	Calling a function with wrong assumptions about its contract, ignoring documented preconditions, depending on undefined behavior or implementation details.
Boundaries / input	Untrusted input used unvalidated (defer real security to a dedicated security review, but flag the obvious).
Tests	New branch with no test, happy-path-only coverage, assertions that can't fail, flaky timing-dependent tests.
Performance	N+1 queries, work inside a hot loop that could hoist out, accidental O(n²), a query with no index, loading a whole collection to count it. Flag only when it matters at expected scale.
Readability / reuse	Duplicated logic that already exists elsewhere, a 6-deep nesting that an early return flattens, a name that lies about what the thing does.

Severity model

Tag every finding so the author knows what blocks merge and what doesn't.

Severity	Meaning	Blocks merge?
Blocker	Correctness bug, data loss, security hole, breaks the build/tests.	Yes
Major	Likely-wrong under realistic conditions, missing error handling on a real failure path, missing test for new behavior.	Usually
Minor	Works, but harder to maintain, slightly off-pattern, small inefficiency.	No
Nit	Pure style/naming preference. Prefix with `nit:` so it's clearly optional.	No

If you can't articulate the failure mode, it's at most a Minor — don't inflate taste into a Blocker.

How to phrase feedback

A useful comment points at a line, names the failure, and proposes a fix. Three parts:

payment.go:142 (Blocker) — If charge() throws after markPaid() runs, the order is marked paid but no charge exists; the next reconciliation will refund a payment that never happened. Move markPaid() after the charge succeeds, or wrap both in a transaction.

Point at file:line so it's locatable.
Explain the failure mode ("if X then Y goes wrong"), not just "this is wrong."
Suggest the fix — even a rough direction. A finding with no path forward stalls the PR.
Ask, don't assert, when unsure. "Is items guaranteed non-empty here? If a caller can pass [], this indexes out of bounds." — invites the author to confirm rather than starting a fight.
Praise sparingly and specifically when a tricky thing is done well; it calibrates the rest.

Avoid: vague drive-bys ("this seems off"), restating the diff, bikeshedding naming on a Blocker-laden PR, and demanding rewrites that don't change behavior.

Approve vs request changes

Approve — no Blockers or Majors; remaining items are Minors/Nits you're happy to see deferred. Approving with a couple of nit:s the author can take or leave is normal and keeps things moving.
Request changes — any Blocker, or a Major that materially risks correctness. Be explicit about which findings gate the merge so the author isn't guessing.
Comment (no verdict) — you have questions that change your assessment depending on the answer, or you only skimmed and want to flag that.

Don't block a PR on preferences. Don't approve a PR you didn't actually understand — "LGTM" on a diff you skimmed is how bugs ship.

Review checklist

On reviewing your own diff

Self-review before you send is worth doing and this checklist applies to it. It lowers what a reviewer finds.

It does not make you the reviewer of record. The mistakes you cannot catch in your own diff are the ones that come from your own model of the code — you will re-derive the same wrong assumption reading it back, because it is the assumption that produced the line. That is precisely what a second reader is for. Self-review reduces the defect rate; it does not discharge the independent check.

code-review