Philosophy
The team's approach to code review and its purpose.
4.8
on G2
Free Engineering Template
Standards for code reviews and quality
Use this template to standards for code reviews and quality.
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Category | Engineering |
| Owner | [Team or owner] |
| Version | [Version number] |
| Effective Date | [Date] |
| Review Cycle | [Monthly / Quarterly / Annual / Event-based] |
| Status | [Draft / In Review / Approved] |
The team's approach to code review and its purpose.
| Item | Details | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Item or requirement] | [Describe the relevant detail, evidence, or decision] | [Owner] | [Open / Complete] |
| [Item or requirement] | [Describe the relevant detail, evidence, or decision] | [Owner] | [Open / Complete] |
[Add context, assumptions, exceptions, evidence links, screenshots, calculations, or reviewer comments.]
Areas to focus on during review.
| Item | Details | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Item or requirement] | [Describe the relevant detail, evidence, or decision] | [Owner] | [Open / Complete] |
| [Item or requirement] | [Describe the relevant detail, evidence, or decision] | [Owner] | [Open / Complete] |
[Add context, assumptions, exceptions, evidence links, screenshots, calculations, or reviewer comments.]
Guidelines for constructive, actionable feedback.
| Item | Details | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Item or requirement] | [Describe the relevant detail, evidence, or decision] | [Owner] | [Open / Complete] |
| [Item or requirement] | [Describe the relevant detail, evidence, or decision] | [Owner] | [Open / Complete] |
[Add context, assumptions, exceptions, evidence links, screenshots, calculations, or reviewer comments.]
Checklist of items to verify.
| Item | Details | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Item or requirement] | [Describe the relevant detail, evidence, or decision] | [Owner] | [Open / Complete] |
| [Item or requirement] | [Describe the relevant detail, evidence, or decision] | [Owner] | [Open / Complete] |
[Add context, assumptions, exceptions, evidence links, screenshots, calculations, or reviewer comments.]
When to approve, request changes, or block.
| Item | Details | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Item or requirement] | [Describe the relevant detail, evidence, or decision] | [Owner] | [Open / Complete] |
| [Item or requirement] | [Describe the relevant detail, evidence, or decision] | [Owner] | [Open / Complete] |
[Add context, assumptions, exceptions, evidence links, screenshots, calculations, or reviewer comments.]
Expected review response times. Be specific and actionable. Include examples of good feedback.
| Item | Details | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Item or requirement] | [Describe the relevant detail, evidence, or decision] | [Owner] | [Open / Complete] |
| [Item or requirement] | [Describe the relevant detail, evidence, or decision] | [Owner] | [Open / Complete] |
[Add context, assumptions, exceptions, evidence links, screenshots, calculations, or reviewer comments.]
Template Structure
Use this engineering template as a starting point, then customize each section to match your internal workflow, evidence, and signoff needs.
The team's approach to code review and its purpose.
Areas to focus on during review.
Guidelines for constructive, actionable feedback.
Checklist of items to verify.
When to approve, request changes, or block.
Expected review response times. Be specific and actionable. Include examples of good feedback.
Write Code Review Guidelines. Structure with:
The team's approach to code review and its purpose.
Areas to focus on during review.
Guidelines for constructive, actionable feedback.
Checklist of items to verify.
When to approve, request changes, or block.
Expected review response times.
Be specific and actionable. Include examples of good feedback.
Code review is a collaborative process to improve code quality and share knowledge. Reviews are about the code, not the author. Every review is an opportunity to learn — for both the reviewer and the author.
| Priority | Area | Questions to Ask |
|---|---|---|
| High | Correctness | Does the code do what the PR description says? Are edge cases handled? |
| High | Security | Any injection risks, exposed secrets, or missing auth checks? |
| Medium | Design | Is this the right abstraction? Will it be easy to modify later? |
| Medium | Testing | Are the tests meaningful? Do they cover failure cases? |
| Low | Style | Does it follow our conventions? (Prefer linter enforcement over manual review) |
Do:
- Explain why, not just what: "This could cause N+1 queries because each iteration hits the DB"
- Suggest alternatives: "Consider using prefetch_related() here to batch the queries"
- Distinguish must-fix from nice-to-have: prefix optional suggestions with "nit:" or "optional:"
Don't:
- Use "you" language that sounds personal: ~~"You forgot to handle errors"~~ → "Error handling is missing for the API call on line 42"
- Leave vague comments: ~~"This is confusing"~~ → "The variable name data is ambiguous — could this be user_preferences instead?"
Record a walkthrough, training session, or process demonstration. Docsie AI turns it into structured documentation using this template as the starting framework.
Use the template manually, or let Docsie generate the first draft from source footage.
Template FAQ
Common questions about using and generating a code Review Guidelines.
Q: What is a code Review Guidelines?
A: A code Review Guidelines is a structured document for standards for code reviews and quality.
Q: Can I download this code Review Guidelines as Word or PDF?
A: Yes. This page includes free downloads in DOCX, PDF, and Markdown formats so you can edit, share, or import the template into your documentation system.
Q: Can Docsie generate this from a video?
A: Yes. Upload a process walkthrough, training recording, or screen capture to Docsie, then use this template structure to generate a first draft automatically.