Healthy vs. Unhealthy Code Review

In this segment, we explore a crucial cultural principle in code review: “You are not your code.” The way we give feedback deeply influences team trust, learning, and psychological safety. Our goal isn’t to be “right”—it’s to help each other grow and to build a healthy, collaborative engineering culture.

Key Takeaways:

• We critique code, not people: Everyone—from interns to staff engineers—writes imperfect code. We give feedback without attacking the author, always assuming good intent and shared goals.
• We use empathy-driven language: Ending comments with a question mark (“Have you considered…?”) or using tentative language (“This might miss an edge case…”) keeps feedback constructive and opens the door to discussion, not defensiveness.
• We avoid destructive comments: Terse feedback like “Did you even test this?” not only fails to help—it can demoralize authors and harm team culture. Being “right” is meaningless if it alienates collaborators.
• We model humility, especially as senior engineers: Seniority should amplify empathy, not authority. Even if we're confident, we acknowledge the possibility we're wrong and focus on dialogue, not dominance.
• We prioritize helpfulness over harshness: Great reviewers point to specific issues, offer reasoning, and invite collaboration. They focus on moving the work forward—not “winning” a debate.

By reviewing with empathy, humility, and clarity, we turn every code review into an opportunity to strengthen our team and elevate everyone’s craft.