5 Advanced Code Review Lessons I Got From a Staff Engineer

He didn’t comment on my code style — he challenged my thinking.

5 Advanced Code Review Lessons I Got From a Staff Engineer

If you’ve ever had your pull request dissected by a staff engineer, you know the difference between “nice job” and real feedback. Early in my career, I saw code reviews as a checklist: Are there typos? Are tests passing? Does it work?

But after shadowing and working closely with a staff engineer at my company, I started to understand the deeper layers of code reviews — what they should be: collaborative, thoughtful, and focused on long-term maintainability, not just short-term correctness.

Here are five advanced lessons I learned that changed the way I review — and write — code.

1. Code Reviews Are Conversations, Not Audits

Early on, I treated code reviews like a checklist. Is the logic correct? Are there tests? Any glaring security issues?

But the Staff Engineer taught me to see them differently. “You’re not a gatekeeper,” he once told me. “You’re a collaborator.”

Instead of nitpicking style or syntax, he’d ask open-ended questions:

• “What led you to choose this pattern?”
• “Have you considered using X here instead?”
• “Could we simplify this logic to reduce the cognitive load?”

These weren’t rhetorical. He genuinely wanted to understand the author’s thinking. It created a two-way dialogue — and in that space, better solutions emerged. He reminded me that behind every pull request is a human being, not just a diff.

2. Look Beyond the Code: Consider the System

This one hit me hard. I once submitted a PR that passed all tests and worked beautifully — for this use case. But it subtly introduced tech debt that wouldn’t become obvious until much later.

The Staff Engineer’s comment was simple:

“This introduces a tight coupling between modules A and C. In six months, this will hurt us.”

He was right.

I had optimized for the local problem but ignored the system-wide implications. From him, I learned to zoom out:

• How does this change impact other teams?
• Are we introducing implicit dependencies?
• Could this scale if usage increases 10x?

Code reviews aren’t just about the now — they’re a chance to safeguard the future architecture.

3. Don’t Just Point Out Problems — Offer a Way Forward

You’ve probably seen reviews like this:

• “This is confusing.”
• “Needs better error handling.”
• “Too complex.”

Okay… but how do I fix it?

The Staff Engineer had a rule: “If you spot a problem, give a concrete suggestion — or at least guide the thinking.”

Instead of “too complex,” he’d write:

“This logic is a bit dense — could we break it into smaller helper functions with descriptive names? That might improve readability without sacrificing performance.”

Constructive feedback isn’t just about identifying issues — it’s about helping the author level up. This mindset turned our reviews from frustrating to genuinely educational.

4. Know When to Push and When to Let Go

This one surprised me.

There were moments when I’d see the Staff Engineer let something slide — an imperfect abstraction, a naming choice, a small inconsistency. Not because he missed it, but because he chose not to press.

He explained it like this:

“Code reviews are about impact. If the change is minor and doesn’t harm readability or correctness, I’d rather keep the PR moving than stall for perfection.”

He had a great sense of prioritization. Not every hill is worth dying on. By focusing on what truly mattered — maintainability, correctness, scalability — he kept velocity high without sacrificing quality.

This taught me that great reviewers are also great pragmatists.

5. Teach Through Your Reviews

Perhaps the most lasting lesson was this: every review is a teaching moment.

The Staff Engineer never patronized. He didn’t preach. But in his reviews, he embedded context, shared links to relevant documentation, and gently introduced best practices. Here’s a typical comment:

“We usually avoid using this pattern because it can lead to hidden state bugs. Here’s a great blog post that explains why. Consider using X instead — it’s more predictable in our codebase.”

He never stopped at what — he always explained why. Over time, I started anticipating his feedback before he gave it. And eventually, I found myself mentoring newer devs the same way.

Final Thoughts

The best engineers aren’t just great at writing code — they elevate the people around them.

Thanks to this Staff Engineer, I learned that code reviews are an art. They’re a space for mentorship, collaboration, and long-term thinking. When done well, they raise the collective bar of the entire engineering team.

So next time you open a PR — or review one — try asking yourself:

Am I just checking code? Or am I helping someone grow?

The difference might just turn you from a good engineer into a great one.

Enjoyed this piece?
Share your own code review lessons in the comments.
Follow me for more stories on engineering, team culture, and career growth.