Human Code Review
Career Paths
How to interpret this table?
You may choose this advanced topic if you like doing the things listed under “they usually do”, and you are fine with not doing the things listed under “they usually do not do”.
Alternatively, you may choose it if you are interested in applying for the listed job roles and want to practice work that is close to those roles.
| Job title | They usually do | They usually do NOT do | Real-life examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Software Engineer (review-focused) | Review peers’ code critically and constructively, identify defects, design issues, and maintainability problems, and improve code quality through discussion | Approve code without review, focus only on style nitpicks, or turn reviews into personal criticism | Peer review in professional development teams |
| Review Facilitator / Tech Lead | Organize reviews, define review criteria, ensure feedback is acted upon and documented | Let reviews become informal chats without traceable outcomes | Pull-request based workflows, merge request reviews |
Affected SDLC Phases
If a team chooses this advanced topic, the implementation, testing, and quality assurance phases are most strongly affected. Code quality is improved through systematic human review. Reviews must be planned, executed, and followed up; they are not ad-hoc or symbolic.
Affected Tasks
Features are defined
Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
By the end of this task, your team has defined which parts of the codebase will undergo human code review and what review criteria will be used.
Technical Details
The team must define and document:
- Review scope (files, modules, or pull requests)
- Review criteria (e.g. correctness, readability, design, testability)
Automated tools may support reviews but must not replace human judgement.
Quality
High-quality work shows clear, shared expectations for what reviewers look for.
Features are sorted by priority
Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
Your team prioritizes review findings based on impact.
Technical Details
Prioritization must consider:
- Correctness and defect risk
- Maintainability and readability
- Long-term technical debt
Not all comments must result in changes, but decisions must be justified.
Quality
High-quality prioritization focuses review effort on issues that matter most.
Features' cost and price are estimated
Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
Your team estimates the effort required to address review findings.
Technical Details
Estimates must be based on the number and severity of review comments.
Quality
High-quality estimates realistically account for rework caused by reviews.
System is working
Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
By the end of this task, your team demonstrates that human code reviews were performed and had impact.
Technical Details
The demo must show:
- Review artifacts (pull requests, comments, approvals)
- Code changes resulting from review feedback
Reviews must be traceable to specific code changes.
Quality
High-quality demos clearly show that reviews improved the code, not just approved it.
Bug fixing
Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
During development, your team reports and fixes at least one issue identified through human code review.
Technical Details
The bug report must include:
- Review comment identifying the issue
- The fix applied
- Reviewer confirmation or follow-up
Fixes must address the reviewer’s concern, not bypass it.
Quality
High-quality bug fixing shows effective collaboration and learning through review.
User documentation
Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
User documentation is not required to include code review details.
Technical Details
No additional requirements beyond standard task expectations.
Quality
High-quality submissions keep review discussions internal.
Developer documentation
Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
Developer documentation describes the human code review process.
Technical Details
Documentation must describe:
- How reviews are performed
- Roles of authors and reviewers
- Review criteria and expectations
- How feedback is tracked and resolved
Quality
High-quality documentation enables consistent and constructive reviews.