Code review is a structured process where a change author submits a bounded diff for another person to evaluate against correctness, security, readability, and architecture before it merges, and constructive feedback frames issues as specific, actionable observations rather than judgments of the author.
In simpler words
Review is someone else checking a change against real criteria before it ships, and giving or receiving feedback well makes that process actually useful.
Use the same checklist mindset from this week when reviewing a teammate Nest PR — migrations, guards, DTOs, and contracts.
After this you can
Write a PR description that helps a reviewer verify a change quickly
Give specific, actionable review comments instead of vague ones
Distinguish a blocking issue from a stylistic preference
Respond to review feedback without treating it as personal
Making a PR reviewable
Definition
A reviewable pull request describes intent, scope, and verification steps clearly enough that a reviewer can assess correctness without re-deriving the author reasoning from the diff alone.
In simpler words
Tell the reviewer what changed, why, and how it was checked, instead of making them reverse-engineer intent from raw code.
A good description states the problem, the approach, what was explicitly left out of scope, and how it was verified, including which requests or tests were run.
Small, single-purpose PRs get reviewed faster and more carefully than large ones.
PR description shape
## What
Add priority enum with a filter query param.
## Why
Support triage sorting.
## Verified
- Migration applied and rolled back cleanly
- POST/GET tested via Postman as member and admin
- OpenAPI reflects the new field
A reviewer can verify claims instead of guessing intent.
Giving and receiving feedback
Definition
Actionable feedback identifies a location, states a concrete consequence, and suggests a direction; receiving feedback well treats comments as evaluation of the code, not the author.
In simpler words
Say what is wrong, where, and why it matters — then respond to the technical point.