Why Teams Rebuild Code But Relearn the Same Lessons
by•
Most code doesn’t last.
But the reasoning behind it should.
Good code review captures intent,
why something exists,
what problem it was meant to solve,
and what tradeoffs were accepted at the time.
When that context is shared, teams move with confidence.
When it’s missing, teams repeat the same debates again and again.
Review isn’t about judging the change.
It’s about preserving understanding.
Curious to hear from you : What context do you wish more reviews made explicit?
58 views
Replies
For me, I wish reviews explained why this approach was chosen over simpler ones. I often see clever solutions without knowing the constraints that pushed the team there. That missing context usually comes back to haunt future refactors.
GraphBit
@delphia_phy That’s a great callout. Without explaining the constraints that led to a choice, clever solutions lose their justification over time. Making those trade offs explicit is often what prevents future refactors from undoing necessary complexity.
I personally want reviews to capture what was intentionally not solved. Knowing the boundaries helps me avoid reopening debates that were already settled and saves time when priorities havn't changed.
GraphBit
@steven_granata Exactly. Explicitly stating what was out of scope is just as valuable as explaining what was solved. It protects teams from reopening settled discussions when the underlying priorities haven’t changed.
From my experience, the most valuable context is what broke before. When reviews explain past failures, I understand the defensive code better and stop assuming it's overengineered.
GraphBit
@tanya_sharath That context is hugely underrated. When past failures are visible, defensive code stops looking like overengineering and starts reading like institutional memory.
I wish more reviews made business pressure explicit. Deadlines, customer demands or temporary hacks matter. Without that context, it's easy to judge code unfairly instead of understanding why compromises were made.
GraphBit
@almuddin_ansari Very true. Business pressure shapes technical decisions whether we document it or not. Making those constraints explicit leads to fairer reviews and more pragmatic future changes.
For me, reviews should explain expected future changes. If I know this code is meant to evolve soon, I'll treat it differently than something intended to stay stable for years.
GraphBit
@abele_wickware Well said. Intent around lifespan matters a lot. Code meant to evolve should be read differently than code meant to stay stable and reviews are the right place to set that expectation.
Personally, I want reviews to document team agreements. Sometimes code reflects a decision everyone aligned on but newcomers don't know that and question it repeatedly.
GraphBit
@aarav_krishna Absolutely. Documenting team agreements turns reviews into a shared record, not just feedback on a diff. It’s often the missing link for onboarding and long-term alignment.