Agent Skills: Stop Stuffing Workflows Into Your Rules File
Salatiel Lima | Apr 29, 2026
Yes, you read it right. I took the liberty to adapt Daft Punk’s song title to talk about code review. As I write this, I’m wondering if it is going to pass the thorough examination of the chief editor, but I like how the title sounds (and it really describes how a Pull Request should be). And you see, even this harmless piece of text is going over a rvesoin revision process before you can have the chance to be struck by my insights, so why shouldn’t we do the same with our code?
Code review is the process of having a peer developer reading your code after it’s done or during development time (pair-programming). The main goals are to find overlooked mistakes, guarantee the maintenance of the code style guidelines and discover more elegant ways to solve the same problem, taking into account scalability and performance, for instance. The result is software with better quality and wider involvement of the development team. Having your code inspected by someone else has many positive impacts:
Despite all these advantages, a lot of developers still shiver when they are assigned to a Pull Request. Code review is many times taken as unnecessary, inefficient and deadly boring. Don’t get me wrong: I understand this is sometimes the case. What I want to point out is that the problem usually isn’t the code review itself, but the process involved. Picture the following scenario:
You see a new Pull Request assigned to you. At first, you have no idea what’s it all about. The title reads: “Improvements and refactor”. You click on the link and see an ocean of green and red marks: four thousand additions, a thousand deletions. You don’t freak out, start full gas: “comment it, scroll it, improve it, code it” (read with robotic voice). Soon you are bored, comments are less and less frequent, and the code review loses its purpose.

This is not because the revision process doesn’t work at all, it’s simply because it’s being done the wrong way. Here are some principles we try to follow at our best here at Cheesecake Labs to improve code review quality:
Here at Cheesecake Labs we take code review as a core part of our culture. We use it to have awesome conversations among devs, learn new technologies with more experienced peers, let others know how we solve problems and most importantly: deliver great software as a team.
By the way, want to learn Pull Request submission best practices? Check out this post that my friend Iacami wrote about it: Git Etiquette: Submitting a Pull Request.
Cover Image: Adapted from “Daft Punk by Shaun Laakso”. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0
Code review is the process of having a peer developer read your code after it's done or during development time (pair-programming). The main goals are to find overlooked mistakes, guarantee the maintenance of code style guidelines, and discover more elegant ways to solve the same problem, taking into account scalability and performance.
Code review helps find errors, possible vulnerabilities, and under-performing code before it reaches the final user or QA. It spreads knowledge among participants, encourages constructive discussion, distributes responsibility and ownership, and serves as an excellent way for junior developers to learn from more seasoned professionals.
The problem usually isn't the code review itself, but the process involved. For example, receiving a Pull Request with a vague title like 'Improvements and refactor' containing thousands of additions and deletions leads to reviewers becoming bored and making fewer meaningful comments.
Keep your PR focused on its goal, write meaningful commit messages and PR titles, keep PRs under 500 lines between additions and deletions, use linting and automated tests, keep related code as close as possible, keep trailing commas in multiline literals to reduce merge conflicts, follow a code style pattern, and don't take comments personally.
Fewer lines of code means less time reviewing it, which results in a more concentrated reviewer.
Settled down from travelling to build some good applications. Feels comfortable developing on both ends, though lately tends to the front-side of the moon.