Across the different teams and orgs I have worked at, there's always been 1 constant during code reviews: Each comment provided an explanation of why some chang

Across the different teams and orgs I have worked at, there's always been 1 constant during code reviews: Each comment provided an explanation of why some change was being debated. Every engineer knew the review is not a judgement of their coding prowess. Rather each discussion was purely on the merits of that line of code. Sure, there can be disagreements, but it was never judgemental. Usually folks are amenable when there is good justification to the feedback in my experience. It goes both ways too: I personally don't care if some of my nits are not fixed. Btw, since I think it is relevant to this discussion, we're working on making code reviews deeper than text based diffs. Check out (DiffLens)[https://github.com/marketplace/difflens https://github.com/marketplace/difflens] if you're code base is primarily TS, JS and/or CSS to get language aware diffs on your GitHub pull requests. We've found that it makes understanding code changes much easier