In a session hosted by The Top Voices, software engineer Alexander Svetkin explored how code review practices from large tech companies can help startups move faster, not slower. Drawing on years of experience leading engineering teams, he outlined why code review isn’t a formality but a critical part of building scalable development culture — and how to implement it without blocking the team.
Speaker
Alexander Svetkin is a Principal Software Engineer at Microsoft, working on Azure Core infrastructure. With over 15 years of experience in tech, he focuses on scaling engineering processes, improving development efficiency, and building resilient platforms.
Why Code Review Makes Teams Faster
When done right, code review doesn’t slow down delivery — it accelerates it. Teams that review consistently see fewer regressions, stronger code ownership, and faster iteration over time. Skipping review often leads to conflicting changes, unowned modules, and long-term friction that’s harder to undo.
Common Misconceptions
- “It’s just for catching bugs.” The real value is in clarity, maintainability, and shared understanding — especially in growing teams.
- “It’s only for juniors.” Senior engineers often work on the most critical parts of the system. These changes need review the most.
- “It’s extra overhead.” Code review is not a extra task — it’s a core part of development. When ignored in planning, it delays teams and blocks progress.
What Makes Code Review Work
High-performing teams follow four key principles:
- Automate the routine. Formatters, linters, static analysis, and tests should run before a human reviewer sees the code.
- Keep PRs small. Smaller changes get reviewed faster, with fewer bugs and easier rollbacks.
- Prioritize clarity. A clear PR description, meaningful names, helpful comments, and design context all reduce friction.
- Make review part of the plan. It needs dedicated time and shared responsibility. Treating it as optional leads to delays.
Meta’s engineering team improved velocity without compromising quality by rethinking their approach: Move faster, wait less.
Microsoft shares its internal playbook in Reviewer Guidance, and Google’s Standard of Code Review remains a foundational reference.
Building a Feedback Culture
Effective reviews clearly separate:
- Facts that require changes.
- Opinions that offer alternatives.
- Nitpicks that are optional.
Feedback should always be directed at the code, not the person. A respectful tone, even in disagreement, creates space for collaboration — especially when involving junior engineers. Including them in reviews accelerates onboarding, builds context, and reduces reliance on a few bottlenecks.
Review Is Engineering Infrastructure
Like CI/CD or automated testing, code review is a core part of shipping reliable software. Large companies scale it through automation, clear ownership, and integrated tools — but the fundamentals are accessible to any team.
Even the choice of platform matters. A recent JetBrains survey shows that GitHub, GitLab, and others already offer CODEOWNERS, review policies, and flexible automation that support healthy review culture.
Conclusion
Code review is not a bottleneck but a catalyst for a mature engineering culture. It helps teams go beyond simply avoiding mistakes and instead build development processes that scale and remain predictable over time. Rather than treating review as a formality or an extra burden, it should be embedded into engineering workflows alongside testing and builds. This approach pays off quickly: higher quality, faster delivery, and stronger teams.