Code reviews are a unique opportunity to mentor, collaborate, and build better software together. Reflecting on my experience reviewing code for junior developers at Microsoft, I’ve come to see code reviews as much more than a process for catching bugs. They’re about guiding developers toward clarity, simplicity, and maintainability, while also fostering an understanding of the “why” behind every suggestion.

These moments aren’t just about improving the code; they’re about strengthening the developer’s ability to think critically and independently. The best reviews are conversations that leave both the code and the team better than before.

A code review is more than a chore to cross off the list; it’s a dialogue, an exchange of ideas, and an opportunity to shape not just the code but the coder. When done well, it’s a powerful tool for building better software and better developers. It’s about looking beyond the syntax to the logic, the intention, and the impact of the code. For me, code reviews are as much about mentoring as they are about finding bugs. They’re a chance to connect the dots between the “how” and the “why,” ensuring that every line written contributes meaningfully to the larger whole.

Code as Conversation

Every review is a conversation — not a lecture. It’s about sharing perspectives, asking questions, and explaining the “why” behind every suggestion. My mentee often pushes back or asks follow-ups, and I encourage that. The goal isn’t to dictate how she codes but to teach her to think critically and independently.

By the end of a session, it’s not just the code that’s better — it’s our understanding of how to collaborate, build, and improve together. That’s what makes a code review more than just a task. It’s an opportunity.

Celebrate Progress

A good review isn’t just about pointing out what’s wrong — it’s about recognizing what’s working. When my mentee wrote a clean integration test for creating paired secrets, I made sure to call out how well it was structured. “This is great,” I said. “You’ve broken it down step by step, and the logic is easy to follow. Keep doing this.”

Positive reinforcement matters. When someone knows they’re on the right track, it builds confidence and encourages them to keep refining their skills.

Think Big, Start Small

Code reviews aren’t just about fixing what’s broken — they’re about thinking holistically. What’s the bigger goal of this code? Who’s going to use it? How do we make sure it’s not only correct but maintainable?

Sometimes, this means challenging what’s already there. In one session, we talked about whether a “User Scenario Handler” class was even necessary. “This class feels like it’s trying to do too much,” I told her. “It’s an everything class. Does it really belong here? Could its responsibilities be handled by tests or split into more focused components?”

It’s not about deleting code for the sake of it but about making sure every piece serves a clear purpose. If something feels extraneous, it probably is.

Start with the Fundamentals: Precondition and Postcondition Thinking

Every method, every class, every function has a job to do. Before diving into the details of someone’s code, I focus on what the code is supposed to achieve. This means getting clear on the preconditions and postconditions for each piece of logic. What is true before this method runs? What do we expect to be true after it finishes?

For instance, when my mentee implemented a function to create secrets, I asked, “What happens if someone passes in a junk value? What’s the safeguard? Should this method even be responsible for validating inputs, or should it assume they’re good? If this fails, does it fail loudly and clearly so that a caller knows what went wrong?”

This way of thinking isn’t just theoretical — it’s practical. When you define the boundaries of responsibility, your code becomes easier to reason about and debug. A method should behave predictably based on the inputs it’s given. If it doesn’t, it’s the developer’s job to make sure the code either rejects bad input or documents the expectation that inputs must always be valid.

Conclusion

At its core, a code review is about collaboration. It’s a chance to combine different perspectives, refine ideas, and build trust — not just in the code but in the process of creating it. By celebrating progress, asking thoughtful questions, and challenging unnecessary complexity, we create an environment where learning thrives. The goal isn’t to make someone’s code perfect — it’s to help them think critically and independently so that, over time, their work becomes stronger. When reviews are approached with care and respect, they transcend being a task and become an essential part of building better teams, better developers, and better software.