The system crashed. The bug was traced back to a pull request with three approving "LGTM" comments. The dashboard said "reviewed", the managers clapped, the code shipped. The review theater had its finale - curtain call. 🎭
Code reviews were supposed to be our quality gate. Too often, they've turned into ritual theater. A process designed to protect us quietly morphed into a performance optimized for speed ⚡, appearances 👀, and checkmarks ✔️.
So let's ask the uncomfortable question: are your code reviews a quality gate, or just compliance cosplay?
The "LGTM" Rubber Stamp (Gemini generated image)
🎭 The Ritual of the Rubber Stamp
Most reviews don't review anything. They perform compliance.
"It's compliance cosplay: performing the ritual without any of the substance."
A pull request appears. Someone glances at the diff, squints 👀, and types "LGTM". The counter increments 🔢. Management sees progress 👍. The illusion of rigor is maintained.
Meanwhile, quality remains untouched ❌. This is not a gate. This is theater.
🧠 Reviewer vs. Human Limits
Even when reviewers care, the odds are stacked against them.
Large PRs overwhelm human cognition 🧠. No one can seriously review 2000 lines of code in one sitting.
A reviewer drowning in a wall of red/green GitHub diffs (Gemini generated image)
Diff views push reviewers into a narrow lens 🔍. They check commas and indentation, but miss design flaws ⚠️.
Deadlines create pressure ⏱️: approve fast, keep velocity up 🚀, don't block the pipeline.
"Asking for a thoughtful review of a massive PR is like asking for a structural analysis of a skyscraper by looking at it through a keyhole."
What we get are surface-level approvals. What we lose is depth.
📋 What a Good Review Should Do
A review worth the name asks:
- Does this code actually fulfill the requirement ✅?
- Does it follow conventions that the next developer will understand in six months 🛠️?
- Does it reduce or silently increase technical debt 💣?
A checklist won't make reviews perfect, but it makes them systematic. Without it, reviews are just speed dating with code 💌💻: superficial, forgettable, and ultimately pointless.
A real review is a wine tasting 🍷: swirl, sniff, sip, reflect. Not a shotgunning contest 🥴.
Code review checklist vs. a LGTM rubber stamp (Gemini generated image)
🔄 What Happens After the Review
The forgotten step: follow-up 🔁.
Comments get lost in the noise 🔕, unresolved threads are quietly merged ⚠️, and systemic issues are rediscovered in the next sprint 🏃.
Without a feedback loop, findings become digital confetti: colorful in the moment, but just litter an hour later.
Real review strategies capture lessons 📚, track recurring issues 🔍, and institutionalize learning 🏛️. Otherwise, we're doomed to rediscover the same pitfalls again and again 🔁.
📚 The Learning Effect
Here's the underrated truth: the biggest value of reviews isn't catching bugs 🐛 - it's spreading knowledge 💡.
- Juniors learn from seniors' reasoning 👨💻👩💻.
- Seniors sharpen their thinking by explaining tacit knowledge 🧠.
- Teams converge on patterns, idioms, and shared intuition 🤝.
A drive-by "LGTM" isn't just lazy, it's a*ctively stunting the team's growth* 🌱.
Every superficial review is a missed opportunity to elevate the team 🚀.
🤖 AI Enters the Room
Now the shiny toy: AI-powered code review 🤖✨.
Yes, AI is brilliant at catching trivial issues: style violations 🎨, obvious bugs 🐛, missing null checks ❌. It can even be trained to dig deep into the code! But the real cost? AI obliterates 💥 the one redeeming aspect of reviews: the human learning effect 🧠.
It accelerates the rubber-stamp effect, creating the illusion of rigor while hollowing out the collaborative core 🤝.
We risk trading messy, human mentoring for sterile automation that scales approval without scaling insight 🕵️.
🎬 Closing Punchline
So the next time you're about to type "LGTM" on autopilot 🖊️💤, ask yourself: "Are you a gatekeeper, or just an extra in the theater of compliance?"
Because quality isn't secured by the green checkmark on your dashboard ✔️. It's forged in the awkward, difficult, essential human conversations 💬 we'd rather avoid.
Rubber stamps ship features 🚢. Real reviews build resilient systems 🏗️.
LGTM or Quality Gate?! (Gemini generated image)
🔖 If you found this perspective helpful, follow me for more insights on software quality, testing strategies, and ASPICE in practice.
© 2025 Abdul Osman. All rights reserved. You are welcome to share the link to this article on social media or other platforms. However, reproducing the full text or republishing it elsewhere without permission is prohibited.
Top comments (0)