The PR Checklist I Wish I Had as a Junior Dev: Markdown, Tickets & Debugging
Bookmark this: A code reviewer’s cheat sheet for Markdown formatting, offline debugging, and polite pushback
Code reviews are more than just a gatekeeping ritual—they’re a productivity multiplier and a quality safeguard. But in 2025, the stakes are higher than ever. With AI tools like GitHub Copilot writing ~30% of new code and developer burnout rising, teams need sharper strategies to balance speed and rigor.
I’ve come to understand this even more while working at my previous company, where I started as a junior developer and I published code for review like it was a race 🏎️, neglecting quality, and trying my best to follow company standards.
As I progressed, my mentor and manager dropped the bomb on me —
it’s not about the quantity of code you churn out, it’s the quality that counts.
So, let’s dive into the data-driven insights shaping modern code review practices.. 👇
The State of Code Reviews in 2025 By the Numbers:
76% of developers consider code reviews "very valuable" for building reliable software
Unreviewed commits are 2x more likely to introduce bugs than reviewed ones.
Teams using AI assistants (e.g., Copilot, CriticGPT) report 4x more duplicate code blocks—a growing maintenance risk.
63% of developers now use AI tools in their workflow, but only 22% trust them for security-sensitive reviews as per this blog-post
Tips for Effective Code Reviews
Getting the broader picture on code reviews, their importance & impact!
Focus on Quality Over Quantity
The 24-Hour Rule: Code reviews that take >48 hours to complete correlate with 35% longer bug-fix cycles. Aim for same-day feedback.
Metrics That Matter: Teams tracking "actionable feedback rate" (vs. vague comments) reduce rework by 40%
Communicate Effectively
Burnout Alert: 43% of developers cite "nitpicky feedback" as a top frustration3. Use frameworks like SBI (Situation-Behavior-Impact) to keep critiques constructive.
Example:
❌ “This function is messy.”
✅ “The nested loops here (lines 45-60) could become a performance bottleneck if we scale to 10k+ users. Let’s discuss refactoring.”
Security Insights
AI-Generated Code Risks: LLM-assisted code has 18% more dependency vulnerabilities than human-written code. Always manually verify third-party libs.
Shift Left, But Smarter: Teams integrating SAST (Static Analysis) tools into reviews catch 52% more vulnerabilities pre-merge
Continuous Learning
The Apprenticeship Gap: Junior devs who participate in 5+ reviews/week improve their code quality scores 2.5x faster than peers
Tool Watch 2025:
CriticGPT (OpenAI): Flags logical inconsistencies in PRs with 89% accuracy
Jules (Google): Automates “boring” review tasks (style checks, linting), freeing up 15-20% of review time
More Neat Tips & Tricks
here I will share some more practical tips, which I’ve observed and learned from my experience!
Use Markdown 📌
I’ve had experience with GitHub and GitLab, so I know that both tools allow for the use of Markdown when writing comments on PRs.
Here is a GitHub repo that acts as a Markdown Cheatsheet 📌
One of my favorite actions, this Markdown typing allows you to do is the ability to embed code, styled based on the specified language! 🤩 Here is how you can do that for Java code for example 👇
The Role of Task Tickets in Code Reviews 🎫
Before looking at the code, always look at the ticket related to the changes!
Whether you use Jira ticket, GitHub or GitLab issues, always read trough the requirements, what’s the impact of the task and what should the outcome of these code changes be after deploying them to production!
Catching a bug related to the implementation of the business logic should be rare, but it does happened and such code reviews are of immense value!
Leveraging GitHub Suggestions for Change 🚀
GitHub also has the functionality to use Suggestions , which basically act as s request for change in code, but with the ability for the coder to directly commit the requested/proposed changed from the GitHub PR review! Ain’t that cool 🚀
Be Polite & Ask Questions 💬
Remember that you are addressing a fellow team member, not just the code they wrote, so be respective when providing feedback.
Frame your comments in a constructive manner. Instead of pointing out flaws, offer suggestions for improvement.
Avoid placing blame or making personal attacks. The focus should be on enhancing the quality of the code, not criticizing the author.
The Benefits of Extracting Code to Your IDE 💻
I’ve been against this for a long time, before finding the value in actually extracting the code locally, to my IDE. I mean yes, there are some PRs which don’t require such step, but if there is a change in business logic, some DB migration script or other more impacting change, I would opt for the code extraction!
This adds a few tools to your toolkit as code reviewer 🛠️
You can dig into the code easier by navigating trough it’s methods, classes and etc. much easier!
You can debug! That’s probably the simplest, yet most important tool!
If you’re using some auto-formatting or code-analysis tool in your IDE, it can spot some unhandled errors or syntax misalignments!
You will have the ability to look at code offline! 😄 This means you can pull the code and look at it when you’re on the train for example! 🚋
The Key Takeaways
Code reviews aren’t just about catching bugs—they’re force multipliers for team growth.
As AI reshapes coding, human reviewers must focus on what machines can’t: mentoring juniors, spotting architectural drift, and asking “Will this scale?”
The stats don’t lie: teams that pair AI efficiency with human wisdom ship 38% faster with 50% fewer production incidents
Thank you for reading & I hope you got some value and ideas from this blog-post!
See you next week! Crush it this weekend, no days off!! 🚀 🫡
Lets connect on LinkedIn as well @ Konstantin Borimechkov 🙌
I find that https://theexcitedengineer.substack.com/i/158571176/communicate-effectively is big bottleneck for PRs, if the engineers reviewing do not have the skills or aren't properly educated on how to communicate on PRs. Alas companies do not focus enough on this point to properly educate engineers and make sure the reviewing practices are syncronized across the organization.