Code Reviews Beyond Syntax: Growth, Resilience, and Learning
✨ Dev Shorts #11 - short and meaningful
Hello 👋,
Welcome back to another article from the ✨ Dev Shorts | short and meaningful collection.
The first time I had my code reviewed, I felt like someone had just poked holes in everything I worked so hard to build. Every “suggestion” read like a red mark on a school assignment. My instinct was to defend myself, explain why I did it that way, prove that my work was still good enough.
But over time, I learned something important: code reviews are not meant to prove your worth. They are opportunities to grow, to learn from others, and to build resilience as a developer.
Feedback, whether in code reviews or in everyday work, is one of the hardest things to handle well. I wrote more about in the article from below, and those lessons apply just as much when it comes to reviewing code.
From Audits to Conversations
Too often, reviews are treated like audits, a checklist of mistakes waiting to be crossed off. But the best reviews I have been part of felt more like conversations.
Instead of “Change this”, it is “I see you solved it this way. What made you choose this approach?”
That small shift, from dictating to asking, creates space for dialogue. It acknowledges that both sides bring experience and context, and sometimes the reviewer learns just as much as the author.
Building Resilience in Receiving Feedback
Let’s be honest, it is not always easy to have your work picked apart. You have invested time, effort, and sometimes pride into writing those lines.
Resilience starts with reframing: feedback is not a judgment of you, it is input for the code.
A few things that helped me over the years:
Pause before reacting. Your first instinct might be defensive. Give yourself space before responding.
Assume positive intent. Most reviewers want to help, not tear you down.
Treat feedback as data. It is one perspective, not the absolute truth.
I once received a review that made me rethink how I structured data fetching across an app. At first, I was annoyed. But when I dug into it, I realized it was not just about syntax - it was a lesson in scalability I still use today.
Giving Feedback with Empathy
On the flip side, how we give feedback matters just as much. Your words can either build confidence or quietly chip away at it.
A few things I try to keep in mind:
Lead with something positive. Even small wins deserve recognition.
Ask questions instead of commanding. “What if we tried…?” lands much softer than “You should…”
Focus on the code, not the coder. “This function could be clearer” feels different than “You wrote this wrong.”
Empathy in reviews creates a culture where people want to share code early, instead of waiting until the last minute out of fear.
When Your Review Gets Challenged
Sometimes, the review you leave will not be the final word. Another developer might correct your suggestion, or you might find yourself in a disagreement about the right solution.
That can feel uncomfortable, like your expertise is being questioned, but it is also where a lot of growth happens.
A few principles I try to follow when this happens:
Detach from being right. The goal is not to “win” the discussion, it is to get to the best solution.
Lean into curiosity. Ask: “What makes your approach better in this case?” or “What trade-offs are we considering?”
Recognize team context. Sometimes, the “better” solution is the one that aligns with team practices, even if it is not your personal favorite.
Document and decide. If disagreements keep recurring, that is often a signal to document a guideline or add it to the team’s playbook.
Some of the most valuable lessons I have learned came from reviews where I was sure I was right, and then discovered a blind spot in my reasoning. Being corrected does not reduce your credibility, it shows you are still learning and willing to.
Code Reviews as a Growth Engine
Every review is a learning opportunity, not just for the author.
As a reviewer, I have picked up patterns I would not have thought of myself. As an author, I have had others point me to resources, articles, similar implementations or past projects that expanded my toolkit.
The more we treat reviews as a knowledge-sharing loop, the faster teams level up. They are not just about ensuring code quality, they are about spreading experience across the team.
Creating Psychological Safety
None of this works without trust. If developers feel like every review is a test they are expected to pass, they will hold back, avoid risks, and stop experimenting.
Psychological safety means people know it is okay to make mistakes - and that feedback will be handled with respect. Leaders play a big role here. When seniors or leads invite feedback on their own code, they send a clear message: “We are all learning. No one is above review.”
Mindset Shifts for Better Reviews
When in doubt, I try to remember these shifts:
Curiosity > Judgment
Progress > Perfection
Dialogue > Dictation
Collective Growth > Individual Pride
These principles do not just make reviews smoother - they shape a healthier, more resilient engineering culture.
Closing Thought
Code reviews will always involve technicalities like performance, readability, maintainability. But if that is all we focus on, we miss the bigger picture.
Reviews are one of the most human parts of software engineering. They are where we learn from each other, build resilience through feedback, and remind ourselves that good code is rarely written alone.
So next time you open a pull request or leave a comment, ask yourself: “Am I just checking for correctness, or am I helping someone grow?”
Because in the end, great code is written by great teams and great teams are built on learning from each other.
Until next time,
Stefania
Articles from the ♻️ Knowledge seeks community 🫶 collection: https://stefsdevnotes.substack.com/t/knowledgeseekscommunity
Articles from the ✨ Frontend Shorts collection: https://stefsdevnotes.substack.com/t/frontendshorts
👋 Get in touch
Feel free to reach out to me, here, on Substack or on LinkedIn.
The shift from “Change this” to “What made you choose this approach?” is more than clever phrasing. It’s a fundamental change in how code reviews work.
I’ve been digging into why this shift is so difficult in practice. Code review problems are rarely about code review itself. They’re symptoms of deeper organizational issues: reviewers lacking context, missing ownership, or constantly context-switching. Even the best intentions around empathy fall apart under these conditions. I wrote about this here: https://blog.pragmaticdx.com/p/code-reviews-are-slow-because-everything
Your point about psychological safety is the key insight. It’s the foundation that makes everything else work. Without it, process improvements don’t stick. With it, even imperfect processes work because people actually want to engage.
The lessons in scalability you mentioned, Stefania, are exactly the kind of valuable insight that only comes from a healthy review process. Thanks for emphasizing the human side of engineering!