From Friction to Flow: Rethinking Code Reviews

“Are code reviews even worth it?”
“A fast, reliable CI suite would make them obsolete”
“Code reviews should be automated, not manual”

Relax - this is not that article.

We’ve already made our choice: we do code reviews. Human code reviews. Full stop.

Instead, here’s the real question we want to explore: If code reviews are already part of your workflow, how can you make them better?

It turns out the answer has less to do with the code and more to do with the people writing it. How a small shift in how we review code leads to faster decisions, fewer misunderstandings, and better collaboration.

The Reality of Our Code: Legacy, Quirks, and a Little Mystery

Every codebase has a personality. History baked into it.
Ours? Let’s say we support diversity. Some parts are elegant. Others… well, they feel like someone left cryptic clues for future generations. Archaeological findings from a civilization that didn’t believe in documentation.

If any of this sounds familiar, congratulations: you also work with legacy code.

When code has this much backstory, reviewing changes stops being a matter of scanning the lines. It becomes a search for context - hidden, implied, or half-forgotten.

And this is where collaboration, real collaboration, starts to shine.

Where Pair Programming Fits In

For developers still building their seniority, pairing is one of the fastest ways to learn. It’s an immersive way to learn the codebase, the domain, the quirks, the conventions, and the “why does this function behave like that?” questions no onboarding handbook can truly capture.

And speaking of onboarding:

Onboarding Reality
One of our onboarding exercises involves opening a seemingly innocent controller file.
By line 30, new developers usually ask, “Wait, why is that happening here? Isn’t this a controller?”
And that’s when onboarding really begins.

But we don’t pair only for mentoring juniors or onboarding. We do use it to guide new hires through our legacy codebase and navigate risky code that catches people off guard, but also for complex features and critical architectural decisions that are too risky to tackle alone.

But Pair Programming Isn’t Always an Option

Even when pairing makes sense technically, life gets in the way. Calendars clash. Deep focus is needed. The change is small. Or, honestly, we’re just not in the mood to narrate every mental step - no judgment.

Pair programming isn’t a default; it’s a tool.
And tools work best when used intentionally.

So when pairing isn’t feasible but collaboration still matters, we rely on the next best thing.

Enter Pair Code Reviews: Collaboration Without the Calendar Gymnastics

Pair code reviews take the essence of pairing (discussion, alignment, shared understanding) and apply it to the review stage.

The process is simple:

1. Screen shared.
2. Questions asked and answered instantly.
3. Reviewer and author discuss decisions, alternatives, trade-offs, and risks.
4. They refine the code together.

Here’s the difference in velocity:

Async review timeline:

• Monday: PR created
• Tuesday: Reviewer asks questions
• Wednesday: More questions, more answers
• Thursday: Changes pushed
• Friday: Approval
• Monday: Merge

Pair review timeline:

• Thursday 14:00 → call
• 14:20 → updates made
• 14:25 → merged

The collaboration loop:

Author explains → Reviewer questions → Discuss → Improve → Approve → Merge

Why Pair Reviews Outperform Classic Async Reviews

Clarity over comment threads.
A short conversation beats days of typed misunderstandings.

The Comment Novel
Most of us have seen a PR where the review thread was longer than the actual code.
By the end, no one remembered what they were discussing.
A 15-minute pair review would’ve saved a week.

Shared context leads to better decisions.
Reviewers understand not just the code, but the thinking behind the code.

Higher quality feedback.
Design issues, subtle risks, and legacy pitfalls surface more naturally through discussion.

Fewer iterations.
Async reviews can feel like pen-pal correspondence. Pair reviews compress the whole thing into one iteration.

Built-in mentorship.
Everyone leaves the room smarter than they entered.

Less friction, more humanity.
Tone doesn’t get misread. Nuance isn’t lost.
Communication feels… normal.

The Trade-offs

Pair code reviews aren’t a silver bullet. They require synchronous time - both people need to be available at the same moment. That’s not always possible, and it can become a bottleneck if every PR demands a live session.

They work best in teams with a safe culture where junior developers feel comfortable asking questions and senior developers don’t dominate the conversation. Without that foundation, the risk of one person steering the entire discussion is real.

And honestly? For tiny, low-risk changes, the overhead isn’t worth it. A one-line typo fix doesn’t need a 15-minute call.

Pros and Cons of Pair Code Reviews

Choosing Between Pair Programming, Pair Reviews, and Async Reviews

Our practical decision guide:

• Use Pair Programming
  For complex features, architectural decisions, or exploring legacy areas.
• Use Pair Code Reviews
  When collaboration is needed but pairing wasn’t possible during implementation.
• Use Async Reviews
  For small, low-risk changes that don’t require deep discussion.

Each tool fits a different situation.
The magic comes from choosing intentionally.

Conclusion: The Goal Isn’t Perfection. It’s Better Collaboration.

The Aha! Moment
“I thought this code did X… then we paired, talked it through, and realized it actually did Y.”
That collective Aha! is where the real value lives.

Code reviews aren’t just checkpoints - they are opportunities to share knowledge and improve systems together.

Pair code reviews strike a healthy balance: structured enough to keep things moving, collaborative enough to avoid misunderstandings, and flexible enough to fit into real workflows.

Perfect code doesn’t exist.
But better collaboration does - and pair reviews help us get there.