Best practices for effective code reviews

How to structure your code changes to get better, faster, and more cost-effective AI reviews

Well-structured PRs get better reviews, faster reviews, and cheaper reviews. Here's how to optimize your code changes for maximum review effectiveness.

#Keep PRs focused and small

One logical change per PR. If you can't explain it in one sentence, it's too big.

Why it matters: Small PRs are easier to understand, review faster, and cost less (fewer files read for context).

What "small" means:

  • 50-200 lines: Ideal. Reviewers understand the full change in one pass.
  • 200-500 lines: Acceptable. Might need some file reading for context.
  • 500-1000 lines: Getting large. Expect slower reviews and higher costs.
  • 1000+ lines: Too big. Split this up.

Example: Adding user authentication? Split it into separate PRs for login, registration, password reset, and session management. Each PR is reviewable independently.

#Write descriptive PR titles and descriptions

PR title summarizes the change. Description explains the why, not just the what.

CodeReviewr reads your PR description for context. It helps the AI understand intent, catch edge cases, and provide better feedback.

Good PR title: "Add rate limiting to API endpoints"

Good PR description:

Implements rate limiting using token bucket algorithm to prevent abuse.

- Rate limit: 100 requests per minute per IP
- 429 status code when limit exceeded
- Configurable per endpoint

Addresses issue #42 where API was vulnerable to brute force attacks.

The description helps reviewers understand why you're making the change, what approach you took, and important details.

Separate PRs for different concerns:

  1. Database migrations → PR 1
  2. Backend code using new schema → PR 2 (depends on PR 1)
  3. Frontend code using new API → PR 3 (depends on PR 2)

Mixing concerns makes reviews harder and more expensive. Reviewers need to context-switch between frontend patterns, backend logic, and database schema.

#Avoid massive refactors

Refactoring and new features don't mix. Do one at a time.

Bad approach: One PR with refactoring + new feature. 80 files changed, impossible to review safely.

Good approach:

  • PR 1: Refactor payment code (no new features, just cleanup)
  • PR 2: Add new payment method (uses refactored code)

PR 1 is easy to verify (tests still pass). PR 2 is easy to review (just the new feature).

#Write self-documenting code

Code should explain itself. Use clear names, avoid magic numbers, add comments for complex logic.

Good code:

const MAX_LOGIN_ATTEMPTS = 5;
const LOCKOUT_DURATION_MINUTES = 15;

if (failedLoginAttempts >= MAX_LOGIN_ATTEMPTS) {
  lockAccount(userId, LOCKOUT_DURATION_MINUTES);
}

Bad code:

if (x >= 5) {
  doThing(userId, 15);
}

Clear code helps reviewers understand intent and catch issues faster.

#Respond to review feedback promptly

Address feedback, push fixes, and move forward. CodeReviewr does incremental reviews—when you push new commits, it reviews only what changed.

Workflow:

  1. Get initial review
  2. Fix issues, push commits (within hours, not days)
  3. Get incremental review confirming fixes
  4. Merge

Fast cycles keep context fresh and issues resolved quickly.

#Know when to ignore feedback

Not every comment requires a change. Some feedback is subjective or doesn't fit your codebase.

Act on: Security vulnerabilities, actual bugs, performance problems, clear best practice violations.

Consider ignoring: Style preferences that conflict with your codebase, suggestions that don't fit your architecture, warnings about patterns you're intentionally using.

AI reviewers are tools, not oracles. Use your judgment.

#Cost optimization tips

Since CodeReviewr charges per token:

Reduce file reads: Keep related code in fewer files, use clear function names, add brief comments explaining complex logic.

Optimize PR size: Smaller PRs = fewer tokens. Focused PRs = less context needed.

Monitor costs: Check your dashboard regularly. See which PRs cost the most and understand why (many files read? Large diffs? Complex code?).

The goal isn't to minimize costs at all costs—it's to write better code that happens to be cheaper to review.

#The bottom line

Good PR hygiene helps you ship better code faster. Well-structured PRs get better reviews, faster reviews, and lower costs.

Start small. Pick one practice (maybe "keep PRs under 500 lines") and focus on that. Once it's a habit, add another. Your PRs will improve—and your reviews will be faster, cheaper, and more valuable.