Code review is a systematic examination of software code by peers to identify bugs, improve code quality, and ensure adherence to standards and best practices. This collaborative process is essential for maintaining high-quality software development, reducing technical debt, and fostering knowledge sharing across development teams.

Effective code reviews go beyond just finding bugs – they facilitate knowledge transfer, promote consistent coding practices, and help developers grow professionally. The best code reviewers balance technical acumen with strong communication skills, providing constructive feedback that helps their peers improve without causing defensiveness. Whether evaluating potential hires for engineering roles or assessing collaboration skills in engineering roles, understanding a candidate's approach to code reviews provides valuable insight into their technical expertise, communication style, and teamwork capabilities.

When evaluating candidates for this competency, focus on their past experiences with actual code reviews rather than hypothetical scenarios. Look for evidence of both technical rigor and interpersonal skills, as the most effective code reviewers are those who can identify issues while maintaining positive professional relationships. As evaluating problem solving in engineering roles demonstrates, the best candidates approach code reviews as opportunities for collaboration and improvement rather than criticism.

Interview Questions

Tell me about a time when you identified a significant issue during a code review that others had missed. What was the issue, and how did you address it with the code author?

Areas to Cover:

• The context of the code review and what was being developed
• The specific issue that was identified and why it was significant
• How the candidate discovered the issue that others missed
• The technical implications if the issue had remained undetected
• How the candidate approached communicating the issue to the author
• The resolution process and outcome
• Lessons learned from this experience

Follow-Up Questions:

• What specific techniques or approaches do you use during code reviews that help you catch issues others might miss?
• How did the code author respond to your feedback, and how did you navigate that conversation?
• What would you have done differently if the code author had disagreed with your assessment?
• How did this experience inform your approach to future code reviews?

Describe a situation where you received feedback during a code review that made you significantly improve your code. What was the feedback, and what did you learn from it?

Areas to Cover:

• The context of the project and what the candidate was trying to accomplish
• The specific feedback received and who provided it
• How the candidate initially received the feedback
• How the candidate incorporated the feedback to improve the code
• The before/after difference in the code quality
• The impact this experience had on their development practices
• How this experience influenced their own approach to giving feedback

Follow-Up Questions:

• What made this particular feedback more valuable or impactful than other feedback you've received?
• How did this experience change the way you write code initially, before even submitting for review?
• In what ways has this experience shaped how you provide feedback to others during code reviews?
• Were there any challenges in implementing the feedback, and how did you overcome them?

Tell me about a time when you had to review a large, complex code change. How did you approach it, and what strategies did you use to ensure a thorough review?

Areas to Cover:

• The scope and complexity of the code being reviewed
• The candidate's systematic approach to reviewing large changes
• Specific tools or techniques used to manage the review process
• How the candidate prioritized different aspects of the review
• Challenges encountered during the review process
• The outcome of the review and any issues identified
• Time management and efficiency considerations

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you balance the need for thoroughness with time constraints?
• What specific tools or methodologies helped you manage the complexity?
• What would you do differently if you had to review a similar change in the future?
• How did you communicate your findings to ensure they were understood and addressed?

Describe a situation where you had a significant disagreement during a code review. What was the disagreement about, and how did you work toward a resolution?

Areas to Cover:

• The specific technical or architectural disagreement
• The different perspectives held by the people involved
• How the candidate approached the disagreement constructively
• The communication strategies used to explain their position
• How the candidate listened to and understood the other perspective
• The process of finding common ground or compromise
• The final resolution and its impact on the code quality
• Lessons learned about handling technical disagreements

Follow-Up Questions:

• What did you learn about your own communication style from this experience?
• How did you ensure the disagreement remained focused on the code rather than becoming personal?
• What would you do differently if you encountered a similar situation in the future?
• How did this experience influence your approach to subsequent code reviews?

Tell me about a time when you had to review code written by someone with significantly more or less experience than you. How did you adapt your approach?

Areas to Cover:

• The experience gap between the candidate and the code author
• How the candidate modified their review approach based on this difference
• Specific communication strategies used to provide appropriate feedback
• Any additional research or preparation done before the review
• Challenges encountered in this situation
• The outcomes of the review process
• Growth or learning for both parties involved

Follow-Up Questions:

• When reviewing code from a more experienced developer, how did you approach areas where you weren't certain?
• When reviewing code from a less experienced developer, how did you balance mentoring with maintaining code quality?
• How do you ensure your feedback is both respectful and valuable regardless of experience levels?
• What did you learn about effective code review from this experience?

Describe a situation where you had to review code that implemented a feature or used a technology you weren't familiar with. How did you approach this challenge?

Areas to Cover:

• The unfamiliar technology or feature that was implemented
• Research and preparation done to understand the new area
• Resources the candidate utilized to gain necessary knowledge
• How the candidate acknowledged their knowledge gaps
• The review approach used despite the unfamiliarity
• The balance between learning and providing valuable feedback
• How the candidate ensured quality despite the knowledge gap
• The outcome and what was learned from the experience

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you determine which aspects to focus on despite your unfamiliarity with the technology?
• What specific resources or people did you consult to increase your understanding?
• How did you communicate your knowledge limitations to the code author?
• How has this experience influenced how you approach unfamiliar code in subsequent reviews?

Tell me about a time when you had to conduct a code review under significant time pressure. How did you ensure quality while meeting the deadline?

Areas to Cover:

• The context that created the time pressure
• How the candidate prioritized which aspects of the code to focus on
• Specific strategies used to conduct an efficient but effective review
• Trade-offs made and how those decisions were determined
• Communication with stakeholders about the constraints
• The outcome of the review and any issues identified
• Reflection on the effectiveness of the expedited review

Follow-Up Questions:

• What criteria did you use to prioritize certain aspects of the review over others?
• How did you communicate the limited scope of your review to the team?
• Were there any issues that were discovered later that your expedited review missed?
• What would you do differently if faced with similar time constraints in the future?

Describe a situation where you helped improve your team's code review process. What was the issue with the existing process, and what changes did you implement?

Areas to Cover:

• The problems identified in the existing code review process
• How the candidate recognized these issues and gathered evidence
• The specific improvements suggested and why
• How the candidate approached implementing these changes
• Any resistance encountered and how it was addressed
• The results of the process improvements
• Lessons learned about process change management
• How the improvements were measured and evaluated

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you gain buy-in from team members for your proposed changes?
• What metrics or feedback mechanisms did you use to evaluate the effectiveness of the changes?
• Were there any unintended consequences of the process changes, and how did you address them?
• What other improvements would you like to make to code review processes in the future?

Tell me about a time when you identified a pattern of issues across multiple code reviews. How did you address the systemic problem rather than just the individual instances?

Areas to Cover:

• The pattern recognized and how the candidate identified it
• The root cause analysis performed to understand the underlying issue
• How the candidate approached the systemic problem
• Strategies used to address the pattern at a team or organization level
• Any educational components or knowledge sharing implemented
• The results and improvements seen after addressing the root cause
• Long-term impact on code quality and developer practices

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you verify that the pattern was actually a systemic issue rather than coincidental?
• What resistance did you encounter when addressing the root cause, and how did you overcome it?
• How did you track whether your solution actually resolved the pattern of issues?
• What insights did this experience give you about preventing similar patterns in the future?

Describe a situation where feedback you provided in a code review helped a colleague significantly improve their coding skills. What was your approach to making the feedback a learning opportunity?

Areas to Cover:

• The specific skills gap or improvement opportunity identified
• How the candidate recognized this as a teaching moment
• The approach taken to provide educational rather than just corrective feedback
• Specific techniques used to explain concepts or best practices
• How the candidate followed up beyond the initial review
• The colleague's response and development over time
• The impact on the colleague's subsequent code quality
• How this changed the candidate's approach to code review as a teaching tool

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you tailor your feedback to the individual's learning style or experience level?
• What specific strategies helped make your feedback constructive rather than critical?
• How did you balance addressing immediate code issues with teaching broader concepts?
• How did this experience change your view of code reviews as a professional development tool?

Tell me about a time when you had to review code that was technically correct but had significant readability or maintainability issues. How did you approach this situation?

Areas to Cover:

• The specific maintainability or readability issues identified
• Why these issues mattered despite the code being functionally correct
• How the candidate explained the importance of these non-functional aspects
• The specific feedback provided and how it was framed
• Any resistance encountered and how it was addressed
• The outcome and improvements made to the code
• Long-term impact on team practices regarding code readability and maintainability

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you make the case for changes when the code was already working correctly?
• What specific standards or principles did you reference in your feedback?
• How do you balance personal preference versus objective maintainability concerns in your reviews?
• How has this experience informed your own coding practices regarding readability and maintainability?

Describe a situation where you had to review code that implemented a critical security or performance feature. What additional considerations did you include in your review?

Areas to Cover:

• The critical nature of the feature being implemented
• Special security or performance considerations evaluated
• Additional research or preparation done for this specialized review
• Specific vulnerabilities or performance bottlenecks looked for
• Extra testing or validation suggested or performed
• Collaboration with subject matter experts if applicable
• The outcome of the review and any critical issues identified
• Lessons learned about reviewing high-stakes code

Follow-Up Questions:

• What specific security or performance principles guided your review?
• How did you verify that the code actually addressed the critical requirements?
• What resources or tools did you use to support your specialized review?
• How has this experience changed your approach to reviewing code with security or performance implications?

Tell me about a time when you received feedback on a code review you performed. How did you incorporate that feedback to improve your reviewing skills?

Areas to Cover:

• The feedback received about the candidate's code review approach
• The candidate's initial reaction to the feedback
• How the candidate reflected on and evaluated the feedback
• Specific changes made to their review process or style
• How the candidate measured improvement in their reviewing skills
• The impact of these changes on team dynamics and code quality
• Continuous improvement approaches to their reviewing process

Follow-Up Questions:

• Was there any feedback that was particularly difficult to accept, and how did you process it?
• How did you balance incorporating others' feedback while maintaining your own review style?
• What specific metrics or indicators showed you that your review approach had improved?
• How do you now approach giving feedback on others' code review styles?

Describe a situation where you had to decline or push back on requested changes during a code review. What was your reasoning, and how did you handle the conversation?

Areas to Cover:

• The context of the requested changes that were declined
• The technical or architectural reasoning behind the pushback
• How the candidate evaluated the trade-offs involved
• The approach used to communicate the decision constructively
• How the candidate ensured their reasoning was understood
• The resolution process and final outcome
• The impact on the relationship with the reviewer
• Lessons learned about handling technical disagreements

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you ensure your pushback was perceived as professional rather than defensive?
• What alternatives did you propose, if any?
• How did you approach the conversation differently than you might have with a more routine code change?
• Looking back, would you handle the situation differently now, and if so, how?

Tell me about a time when a code review revealed a fundamental misunderstanding or gap in your knowledge. How did you address this learning opportunity?

Areas to Cover:

• The specific knowledge gap or misunderstanding revealed
• How the candidate responded to discovering this gap
• Steps taken to learn and understand the new concept
• Resources or people consulted during the learning process
• How the candidate applied the new knowledge
• Changes made to the code based on new understanding
• How this experience affected their approach to future development
• The impact on their professional development overall

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you balance the need to complete the current task with the opportunity to learn?
• What specific resources were most helpful in closing your knowledge gap?
• How did this experience influence how you approach unfamiliar problems now?
• How has this experience shaped how you help others who might have similar knowledge gaps?

Frequently Asked Questions

What makes behavioral questions more effective than hypothetical questions when assessing code review skills?

Behavioral questions based on past experiences reveal how candidates have actually handled code reviews in real situations, not just how they think they would act in theory. Past behavior is the strongest predictor of future performance. When candidates describe specific code review experiences, you gain insights into their technical abilities, communication style, problem-solving approach, and how they handle disagreements. Hypothetical questions often elicit idealized responses that may not reflect how candidates truly operate under pressure or in complex team dynamics.

How many code review questions should I include in an interview?

Focus on 3-4 high-quality code review questions with thoughtful follow-ups rather than rushing through more questions superficially. This approach allows candidates to provide detailed responses and gives interviewers the opportunity to explore depth through follow-up questions. For a comprehensive assessment, include questions that evaluate different aspects of code review competency – technical judgment, communication style, handling disagreements, and process improvement. Remember that quality of insights gained matters more than quantity of questions asked.

How should I adjust my code review questions for junior versus senior candidates?

For junior candidates, focus questions on basic code review experiences, learning from feedback, and their approach to receiving criticism constructively. Questions might explore how they've grown through code reviews or handled feedback on their code. For senior candidates, include more complex scenarios involving architectural decisions, mentoring others through code reviews, improving team processes, or handling systemic issues. Senior questions should probe their ability to balance technical excellence with practical delivery needs and how they've used code reviews as a leadership tool.

What are the most important traits to look for in candidates' code review responses?

Look for evidence of technical rigor balanced with pragmatism, constructive communication skills, and a focus on collaboration rather than criticism. Strong candidates demonstrate attention to detail while keeping the big picture in mind. They show empathy toward code authors while maintaining high standards. Listen for how they balance thoroughness with practical time constraints and how they adapt their approach based on context (urgency of changes, experience level of the author). The best responses reveal candidates who view code reviews as learning opportunities for everyone involved, not just fault-finding exercises.

How can these interview questions help assess a candidate's ability to work in our specific development environment?

These questions reveal how candidates navigate the human and technical aspects of software development that exist in any environment. By analyzing how they've handled code reviews in the past, you'll gain insights into their adaptability, collaborative approach, and technical judgment – all crucial for success in any development team. To make the assessment more specific to your environment, focus follow-up questions on aspects particularly relevant to your context, such as distributed teams, specific technologies, or your development methodology. You can also ask candidates to relate their experiences to challenges they might face in your environment.

Interested in a full interview guide with Code Review as a key trait? Sign up for Yardstick and build it for free.