Describe your process for conducting code reviews and ensuring best practices.
Why This Is Asked
Interviewers want to see that you treat code review as a quality and learning mechanism, not a bottleneck. They're looking for clear expectations, constructive feedback, and a balance between thoroughness and speed.
Key Points to Cover
- What you look for in reviews (correctness, design, readability, tests)
- How you give feedback (constructive, specific, kind)
- Expectations for turnaround time and reviewer responsibility
- How you use reviews for knowledge sharing and standards
STAR Method Answer Template
Describe the context - what was happening, what team/company, what was at stake
What was your specific responsibility or challenge?
What specific steps did you take? Be detailed about YOUR actions
What was the outcome? Use metrics where possible. What did you learn?
đź’ˇ Tips
- Reference checklists or PR templates if you use them
- Mention how you've improved the review process over time
✍️ Example Response
STAR formatSituation: At a fintech startup, code reviews had become a bottleneck—PRs sat for 3–5 days, and when feedback came, it was often subjective ("I'd do it differently") rather than actionable. Junior engineers felt discouraged; senior engineers felt overwhelmed. We needed to fix the process without sacrificing quality.
Task: I needed to establish clear expectations, reduce cycle time, and make reviews a learning mechanism rather than a gate.
Action: I introduced a PR template with checkboxes: tests added, docs updated, no new lint errors, and a brief description of the change. I set a 24-hour SLA for first review and made it visible in our standups. I created a lightweight review guide: focus on correctness, security, and maintainability; avoid style nitpicks (we automated those with linting). I also ran a session on giving constructive feedback—using "consider X" instead of "this is wrong." I paired junior engineers with seniors for their first few PRs so they learned the expectations. I tracked PR cycle time and shared it in retros.
Result: PR cycle time dropped from 4 days to 1.2 days. We saw fewer post-merge bugs. Junior engineers reported feeling more confident. I learned that clear expectations and SLAs reduce friction—and that automating style decisions frees reviewers to focus on what matters.
🏢 Companies Known to Ask This
| Company | Variation / Focus |
|---|---|
| Amazon | Insist on Highest Standards — "How do you run code reviews?" |
| Technical excellence, collaboration | |
| Meta | High-performing teams, quality |
| Microsoft | Quality, execution |
| Stripe | Building reliable systems |
| Apple | Craft and quality |