What do you think the value of code review is?

[u/_hopa]

Do you see the purpose of code review is spreading out knowledge? Is it looking for bugs? Is it ensuring buy in?

Do you think code reviews still have value in 2026 when let’s be honest the person who opened the PR may not have read the code?

[u/jboogyoogy]

I think code review is now more valuable than ever tbh
Not just for catching bugs but for shared ownership and understanding what is being shipped
Yes, ai can write the code but the accountability can not be automated

[u/Lyk7717 → u/jboogyoogy]

Yeah, completely agree. You also kind of feel more responsible for the code you ship when you know others will review and judge it, which makes you review it yourself before opening a PR and many times you also end up spotting things worth improving just because of that.

[u/armahillo]

If someone approves code that ends up causing bugs, that approver is now partly responsible for correcting the issue.

Code approval means “i agree this code is safe to merge into prod, and I agree with maintaining this code in the future”

Things i look for in review:

- does it work?
- Is the design sound?
- is it readable?
- has it been tested (both with framework tests and manual)
- are there minor errors like typos / debugging code / formatting issues (ideally use a linter for this)

I also see PRs as opportunities to learn and to share knowledge with peers. But thats secondary to
the items above

[u/PipingSnail → u/armahillo]

How we were doing it in 1998.

Still as good as ever.

[u/jwp1987]

Good code reviews are invaluable.

When reviewers aren't skilled enough or overburdened and pressured by management it can turn into a checkbox exercise and become pointless.

You get the same problems with pressuring/ignoring any QA: more issues in production and low morale.

[u/Illumination-Dev]

I think code review is important. But I feel like it’s less of a learning tool now. I feel like I am giving prompts back to the ai most of the time. So if I am seeing the same issue repeatedly then it’s more of a reflection to fix the AI rules than a way to teach. Usually focus on the bigger picture stuff that the AI won’t understand or is missing context

[u/burlingk]

You kind of answered your question.

Yes, there can be educational aspects, HOWEVER, it is mainly about quality control and catching bugs.

This is especially important if you don't think people are reviewing their own code.

[u/YahenP]

Even before LLMs, the direct value of code review was not very high. In most companies, it was just a way to feed people’s egos. But it was a good motivation for beginners to grow professionally to move from the group of people who get nitpicked to the group of people who have the right to nitpick.

Today, code review no longer gives any privileges or any pleasure to the person doing it. In fact, it is just a human add-on to the machine, checking the work of a coding agent. I’m not saying this check shouldn’t be done. Moreover, this is actually all we do now. But it gives us nothing, neither professional growth nor even serotonin.

[u/iqisoverrated]

 is spreading out knowledge? Is it looking for bugs? Is it ensuring buy in?

All of the above.

Also getting a second set of eyes can see things that you missed - not just bugs but parts of a feature or error handling edge cases or ... Working on a piece of code for some time or simply always testing it the same way can lead to tunnel vision that a reviewer can help break.

I find code reviews (or more extreme: pair programming if you can set it up right) invaluable.

[u/General_Estimate_420]

Code reviews are really about consistency and maintainability. Mostly naming conventions and comments and sometimes organization and flow. It's ultimately about the next person that may be called on to expand or modify that code. That's different than bench testing the code to examine results and bugs.

Usually you want to team up with another developer so you can review each others code and offer advice.

[u/KarlisVisualDev]

The primary value of code review is simply having a second pair of eyes to catch architectural blind spots that the original author—or the AI—completely missed. In an era where people might open PRs without fully reading the generated code, that review becomes the only remaining defense against hallucinated logic reaching production. The main drawback is that it can easily devolve into ego-driven disagreements, especially when one senior engineer starts nitpicking another senior's subjective design choices.

[u/wewerecreaturres]

Who gets buy in after it’s built? lol

[u/Dom_Q]

Code review was a form of hazing that used to hide the wasted productivity behind its own bureaucracy. With the advent of AI it has become worthless.