Why I Love Pull Requests (and How You Can Too) 📝💬

Pull requests get a bad rap sometimes. People treat them like a chore, or just a last-minute hoop to jump through before merging code. But the truth is — a good pull request culture can do way more than make sure your code works. It can level up your whole team. 🚀

Over the years, I’ve come to really enjoy reviewing and submitting pull requests. Not because it’s fun nitpicking code (it’s not). It’s because I’ve seen firsthand how much good PRs can do — for code quality, team alignment, learning, and even job satisfaction.

Here’s why PRs matter, and some best practices to help your team get the most out of them.

Why Pull Requests Matter (Beyond Functionality Checks)

• Spread knowledge and context across the team
• Mentor and level up teammates
• Align on coding style and architecture
• Encourage async collaboration
• Prevent silos and “hero dev” problems
• Reduce production bugs
• Build shared familiarity with different parts of the codebase
• Provide visibility into ongoing development and design ideas
• Help align the team on how they build great products

At their best, PRs are more than a gate — they’re a learning tool, a collaboration tool, and a quality tool all rolled into one.

Common Review Styles (Pros and Cons)

Rubber-stamping
When a reviewer approves a PR without actually reviewing it — sometimes within minutes of it being opened. They might trust the author or just want to unblock it quickly, but little to no feedback or thought is given.
✅ Fast — helps unblock PRs
🚫 Skips actual review; allows bugs, misses context-sharing opportunities

Nitpicking
When a reviewer focuses heavily on minor style or wording issues — small variable names, spacing, phrasing — rather than meaningful design, logic, or correctness. Often results in dozens of “tiny fix” comments.
✅ Keeps code style and conventions consistent
🚫 Can overwhelm authors with trivial comments
🚫 May discourage creativity or contribution if tone is negative

Gatekeeping
When a reviewer sets an unreasonably high or subjective bar for approval — blocking PRs based on personal preferences, pet patterns, or perfect-world ideals that weren’t agreed on as a team.
✅ Strong quality control
🚫 Can block valuable progress if standards are subjective or inconsistent
🚫 Can create power imbalances or “us vs. them” mentality

Mentorship-focused
When the reviewer intentionally uses the PR as a teaching opportunity, explaining reasoning, offering alternatives, or providing context — especially for junior team members.
✅ Helps junior devs grow
✅ Turns PRs into a learning opportunity
🚫 Takes reviewer effort and time
🚫 Can unintentionally slow down seniors if over-applied

Collaborative / Pairing-in-Comments
When a reviewer treats the PR as a space to brainstorm, discuss alternatives, and collaborate on the solution — sometimes going beyond strict review into back-and-forth ideation.
✅ Encourages teamwork and shared ownership
✅ Surfaces alternative solutions
🚫 Can scope-creep the PR or delay merging if too much back-and-forth
🚫 Risks shifting design discussions too late (into the PR instead of before building)

Long-winded reviews
When the reviewer leaves paragraphs of text — sometimes thoughtful, sometimes rambling — but so much that it overwhelms the author. It’s hard to tell what’s blocking vs. what’s an idea or tangent.
✅ Sometimes needed for complex cases
🚫 Can cause overwhelm or disengagement
🚫 Might obscure the real blocking issues

Bombardment reviews
When multiple reviewers all leave heavy feedback — sometimes dozens of comment threads each — creating an overwhelming back-and-forth that drowns the PR. Death by a thousand cuts. The author is left unsure which feedback is most important or whose direction to follow.
✅ Surfaces lots of perspectives
🚫 Fatiguing for the author
🚫 Often results in contradictory feedback
🚫 Slows delivery and can harm morale
🚫 Creates fear of submitting “imperfect” PRs

Balanced / thoughtful review (the gold standard)
When a reviewer leaves a clear summary (what’s great, what needs fixing, what’s optional), prioritizes feedback, adapts tone to the author, and reinforces collaboration and trust.
✅ Clear, actionable, respectful
✅ Builds a positive PR culture
✅ Helps the team continuously improve

Best Practices for Effective PRs

✅ Authors should give PRs a personal review first — leave comments to annotate tricky areas or call out intended tradeoffs
✅ Open pull requests as draft first — review it yourself before marking ready for review
✅ Write clear titles and descriptions — explain the why, not just the what
✅ Add screenshots or videos for UI changes
✅ As a reviewer: either approve or request changes — don’t leave it ambiguous with “just comments”
✅ Highlight any areas where you want feedback
✅ Ask yourself: Would I enjoy reviewing this PR?
✅ Respond to feedback respectfully and promptly
✅ Close the loop — summarize key decisions in the PR thread
✅ Adapt tone and style based on the author’s experience — mentor when needed
✅ Keep PRs small and focused — but not too small (scope properly in refinement)
✅ Follow up feature PRs with separate PRs for nitpicks or style (don’t block value)
✅ Use nitpick guards: linting rules, formatters
✅ Create a PR template with useful info sections, a checklist for manual and unit tests, a checklist for follow-ups and next steps
✅ Reviewers should prioritize PR reviews — dedicate daily time
✅ Team should value finishing vs. starting new work — PRs are not a “pause” button
✅ Align on who should review — avoid review “mobs” unless needed for big changes

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

🚫 Empty PR descriptions
🚫 Missing test coverage
🚫 Forcing merges before proper review
🚫 Reviewing PRs the same way for everyone — juniors need guidance, seniors need light touch
🚫 Auto-approving senior or manager PRs based on rank — true quality doesn’t depend on job title
🚫 Fearing to leave honest feedback on PRs from leaders — if team trust isn’t there, this needs to be addressed outside of PRs
🚫 Making PRs small just for the sake of it — proper scoping happens during refinement
🚫 Too many tiny PRs lose context and overload reviewers
🚫 Underestimating the cost of PR reviews — they often take as much or more time than development, and are just as valuable
🚫 Letting review discussions turn into stalemates — wasting time, blocking value
🚫 Forgetting that Rome wasn’t built (or destroyed) in a day — PRs don’t have to be perfect
🚫 Ignoring feedback
🚫 Allowing mob or bombardment reviews to block or demoralize contributors

How to Handle Review Stalemates

• Prevent early: Resolve big design questions before building, not in PRs
• During review:
  • Ask: Is this blocking value? Can this be fixed in a follow-up?
  • Use team standards or architecture docs — lean on team alignment, not personal opinion
  • If blocked — escalate to tech lead / staff / architect for guidance
  • If still stuck — timebox the debate, then team-vote or follow up in a working session

Don’t let a PR debate burn out team morale or delay value.

The Hidden Value of Strong PR Culture

✨ Fewer bugs in production
✨ Smoother onboarding for new team members
✨ Stronger team cohesion and shared ownership
✨ Continuous learning baked into the workflow
✨ Visibility into ongoing ideas and architectural changes
✨ Knowledge sharing — broad familiarity with different code areas
✨ Team alignment on product direction and technical approaches
✨ Higher job satisfaction — engineers who review and get reviewed thoughtfully grow faster and feel more connected to their work

Build a Culture of Quality and Collaboration

Pull requests aren’t just a chore. They’re a team tool — for learning, alignment, quality, and culture.

When done well, they make your team stronger, your product better, and your engineering culture healthier.

So take the time. Prioritize PRs. Review with care. Mentor each other. Build great products — together. 🚀

If you liked this post, you might also enjoy:

👉 Managing a Shared Codebase: Lessons from Home Management
👉 5 Cs of Engineering Value
👉 Principles I Live By as a Software Engineer