This is backwards and why I think mandatory code review is a waste of everyone's time. Nobody should be writing code with the goal of passing a code review. The

This is backwards and why I think mandatory code review is a waste of everyone's time. Nobody should be writing code with the goal of passing a code review. They should be writing code that solves a problem and adds value to the end product. If you're writing a system that requires 5000 lines of code, it's a waste of your time to figure out how to break it up into 5 or 10 PRs (which might actually make it harder to review, since chunking it up would remove context). I understand that code review has a place in enforcing code quality and training junior programmers. Here's what I would suggest. When you hire someone, make sure somebody is assigned to reviewing their code for the first few months. Once they've demonstrated their ability to write good code, from that point forward you trust them not to screw things up. In addition, foster a culture where people are open to criticism and proactive about fixing things. If someone sees a problem with someone else's code, they can either let them know informally, or just go in and fix it themselves. I think this approach would lead to much less red tape and much happier and more productive programmers.