Goldilocks and the Three Code Reviews

on YouTube ↗47m

" summary

Research shows formal inspections catch ~60% of defects and cut defects by 20–30 per 1000 LOC, while short reviews drop error rates from ~55% to ~2% (others report 86% → 99.6% correctness). Surveys find most PRs get reviewed, reviewers spend ~5–20 minutes, and ~10% of teams require asking for reviews. Concrete fixes: add commit hooks, use GitHub PR templates and linters, make small PRs, assign reviewers, collect review metrics and iterate the process.

AI-written summary · about

" chapters (11)

1. 0:00Start
2. 8:34catching problems at the "lowest-value" stage
3. 9:28collective ownership in construction
4. 11:22inspections
5. 13:49short reviews
6. 14:50walk throughs
7. 22:06Energy
8. 24:33Substance
9. 28:59SKYLIGHT
10. 30:301. commit hooks
11. 35:25I love code reviews in theory.

" related talks

• 47mGoldilocks and the Three Code ReviewsVaidehi Joshi · Red Dot Ruby Conference 2017
• 42mGoldilocks And The Three Code ReviewsVaidehi Joshi · JSConf Budapest 2017
• 34mGoldilocks And The Three Code ReviewsVaidehi Joshi · RailsConf 2017
• 45mCracking the Code ReviewPaco van Beckhoven · Voxxed Days Ticino 2025
• 44mEffective Code ReviewDave Liddament · phpDay 2018
• 01h 05mGetting Good (or Better) at Code ReviewsRhia Dixon · NDC Melbourne 2025
• 22mThe truth about code reviewsSebastian Greulach · Voxxed Days Zurich 2017
• 45mCracking the Code ReviewPaco van Beckhoven · Voxxed Days CERN 2025