Pull requests are written by humans
Pull requests are written by humans
A pull request is not a diff in the abstract. It is work done by a person who put thought, time, and ego into making something work.
That does not mean reviewers should avoid hard feedback. It means the feedback should leave the author clear, respected, and able to move.
The rule
Review like the author has to use your comments, because they do.
Make comments easy to act on:
- link to relevant docs or examples
- use suggested changes when the fix is small and mechanical
- say whether a comment blocks
- give the answer when you know it
- switch to a call when comments start piling up
Review is not an interview. Do not ask questions you already know the answer to as a way of making the author discover the point. If you know the answer, give the answer.
Comment dumps
Thirty comments on a four-file PR can be technically valid and still be a bad review.
If the comments are piling up, one of three things is probably true:
- the author has misunderstood something
- the PR is shaped badly
- you are drifting into nits
In all three cases, continuing to add comments is usually worse than talking. Get on a call, align on the issue, and help move the work forward.
The human state matters
People remember review experiences. They remember when the finish line moved. They remember when a reviewer left a vague comment and disappeared. They remember when someone made a hard review feel collaborative instead of humiliating.
This is not softness. It is delivery hygiene. Teams move faster when people are not made worse by the review process.