Pull requests (PRs) are an essential part of modern software development. They let teams propose, review, and discuss code changes before merging them into the main branch. When properly handled, PRs help maintain code quality and encourage collaboration. However, rushed or poorly managed PRs can lead to technical debt and slow progress. 

What makes bad PRs?

Certain small pull request habits can lead to big pitfalls down the line. Let’s talk about some common problems that can make PRs harder to manage and why it’s important to avoid them.

Overloaded PRs

When a pull request (PR) includes multiple unrelated changes, it can get confusing for reviewers and slow down the review process. This common issue, known as "feature creep," makes it difficult to understand the full scope of the PR and properly test or verify each change. Imagine a single PR containing a new feature, UI updates, and database tweaks/upgrades, this is overwhelming which leads to delays and overlooked issues.

Context vacuum

When a PR lacks clear explanations, it leaves reviewers struggling to understand its purpose or impact. Without knowing the “why” behind a change, they often have to search through the codebase for context, which wastes time and creates frustration. Including clear descriptions, relevant notes, and comments keeps everyone on the same page and speeds up the process.

"Clean code always looks like it was written by someone who cares." — Robert C. Martin.

Narrow focus

PR reviews often focus only on whether the code works, but they miss other important things like performance, security, or overall system design. This can cause problems later, as overlooked areas might create issues and bugs or security risks. Reviewers should take a step back and think about how the changes affect the whole system, not just the code itself.

Hidden dependencies 

Even small changes can unintentionally/indirectly affect other parts of the system. For example, updating a database query might slow down other features without warning. If hidden dependencies aren’t caught early, they can lead to harder to find, unexpected errors. Thorough reviews help uncover these risks and prevent bigger problems later.

Review bottlenecks

When too few people are available to review PRs, it can create a stressful work environment. Overburdened reviewers might take longer to respond, leaving authors stuck waiting to move forward. Investing in the reviewer pool and spreading the workload can avoid these bottlenecks and keep the development process moving smoothly.

“A Forrester Research study found that implementing clear pull request standards led to over $5 million in efficiency gains over three years for a large enterprise.” 

Best practices for better PR reviews 

Avoiding common issues in PR review is more than quick fixes. It’s about building a process that supports both efficiency and teamwork. Let’s dive into some easy and helpful best practices to improve how your team handles pull requests.

1. Keep PRs small and focused

Smaller PRs are quicker to review and much easier to work with. When each PR sticks to a single purpose, reviewers can focus on the changes without getting overwhelmed by unrelated updates. This makes feedback faster, helps catch issues early, and keeps things running smoothly. As a rule of thumb, think of each PR as a single, clear chapter in your project’s story, making it easier for everyone to follow and contribute to the project’s overall progress.

2. Use stacked PRs for dependent changes

Stacked PRs break large, dependent changes into smaller, easier-to-review pieces. Instead of gathering everything into one big PR, each smaller PR builds on the one before it, keeping changes clear and organized. This approach helps reviewers focus on tackling one thing at a time, catching problems sooner, and providing better feedback. It also reduces the risk of merge conflicts by keeping updates separate. 

3. Provide clear context

Giving reviewers clear context makes PRs a smooth, productive discussion. By including a concise summary, highlighting the purpose of the changes, and linking relevant resources, you make it easier and faster for reviewers to give proper feedback. Context helps reviewers see how the updates fit into the bigger picture, reducing back-and-forth. Tools with pull request analytics can take this further by offering data-driven insights, helping teams filter code for better results. 

4. Get peer reviews for collaboration and feedback

Peer reviews are a great way to improve code quality and build teamwork. Bringing in team members adds diverse perspectives, making it easier to catch issues others might miss. For peer reviews to work well, feedback should be constructive and respectful, encouraging open discussions. This not only improves the code but also helps developers learn from each other. Regular peer reviews benefit projects from shared expertise and stay on track with high standards.

5. Ensure code consistency

When all team members follow the same coding standards, it becomes easier to read, review, and maintain the code over time. Inconsistent styles not only slow down reviews but also make it easier for mistakes to slip through. AI pull request review tools can take the pressure off by spotting inconsistencies, enforcing guidelines, and suggesting fixes. This guarantees that every PR aligns with the team’s standards, reduces manual effort, and keeps the codebase organized and professional.

6. Automate tests and CI/CD

Automating tests and using CI/CD pipelines helps check every pull request before merging. Automated tests catch bugs early, saving time and effort during reviews, while CI/CD workflows make it easier to test and deploy changes right away. This cuts down on manual checks, reduces mistakes, and keeps development moving quickly. By making automated testing part of the review process, teams can focus on giving helpful feedback and keeping the code clean and reliable.

Related reading: Code review best practices: make good pull requests better

Use Trag for better PRs

Trag makes applying these PR best practices simple and efficient. With features like automated pull request reviews, customizable rules, and real-time feedback, it helps teams maintain code quality and speed up reviews. Whether it’s catching inconsistencies, automating checks, or improving collaboration, Trag is built to handle it all. 

FAQ

What makes a good pull request?

A good pull request is clear, focused, and well-documented. It should address a single purpose or feature, making it easier for reviewers to understand and evaluate. Adding clear descriptions, comments, and relevant context helps reviewers follow your changes and provide meaningful feedback. Small, manageable PRs with tests included are also easier to review and lowers the risk of overlooked issues. 

What is the number one best practice for reviewing PRs?

Peer reviews work best when discussions are open, collaborative, and free of fear. Constructive feedback is key to making reviews a positive and valuable experience for all. Creating a supportive environment gives team members the confidence to take responsibility for mistakes without stress, building a culture where learning and problem-solving as a team are foundational pillars.

How do I correctly perform a pull request?

To create good pull requests, focus on one specific feature or fix per PR. Include a clear description that explains what the PR is for, why it’s needed, and any testing details. Add comments on key parts of the code to explain your reasoning behind the changes. After submitting, stay open to feedback and make updates as needed. Keeping things simple and organized makes the review process easier for everyone.