If you want it to work, you do 100% code reviews. Many people think they want it to work, but they don't want to put in the effort to make sure it works. When

If you want it to work, you do 100% code reviews. Many people think they want it to work, but they don't want to put in the effort to make sure it works. When you do a code review, you demand what you think are reasonable tests. If the organization you work for supports your sincere belief that the code is fucked, and needs re-working... or the testing framework is fucked, and needs re-working... or the guy typing shitty code is fucked, and needs to not be working... then over time, your code will tend to get better. As long as you've got the relevant skills in the room. A sufficiently difficult problem is not likely to be coded correctly by someone who lacks the requisite skills and experience. It pretty much comes down to "invest in the code, or exploit the code." Many managers think they're investing in the code, just because they have coders adding features. That's like saying you know you're fixing potholes, because you see people driving on the road. NOTE: doing code reviews does not guarantee it will work. But over time, skipping code reviews guarantees it will eventually not work.