The cost you speak of is directly trading software quality for "speedier" delivery. Heck, this was even posted just yesterday: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/adm

The cost you speak of is directly trading software quality for "speedier" delivery. Heck, this was even posted just yesterday: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2013/34-70694.pdf http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2013/34-70694.pdf. One of the big problems was there was no code review being performed. Also think of code review as a fantastic learning opportunity for the developers you are reviewing. Practicing an art can only get you so far as an expert, but being critiqued by others can help refine the rough edges you may otherwise ignore throughout your career. Code reviews don't have to happen in massive context, either; why not follow a practice that every pull request (or whatever your SCM calls it) goes through at least one reviewer before being merged to master? And ensure your pull requests are frequent and preferably 100 lines or less! A little bit goes a REALLY long way. Don't give in to the fallacy that your code isn't either worth it or is good enough to not be reviewed.