liveBook · Manning

Review creep

As explained in "Looks Good to Me"

The introduction of extra changes or work during code review that falls outside the scope of the original work.

Review creep adds changes or work outside the original scope during code review, often creating unnecessary discussion. Before suggesting a change, clarify why it is necessary, timely, and objectively defensible. section 6.1.1

Use the 5P process before posting a review suggestion:

  • Pause: stop before writing the comment. section 6.1.1
  • Ponder: examine the trigger, necessity, timing, and objective justification. section 6.1.1
  • Pass when the suggestion is unclear or cannot be explained. section 6.1.1
  • Propose when the suggestion is valid and its rationale is understood. section 6.1.1
  • Postpone suggestions that should not be introduced in the current review. section 6.1.1
Figure 6.4 The 5P process for suggesting a change during a code review
figure

Use the 5P process diagram as a quick decision aid for deciding whether to pass, propose, or postpone a review suggestion. section 6.1.1

How "Looks Good to Me" covers it

How deep it goes
Explains a five-step decision process, including rationale checks, but does not detail implementation or tooling.
Examples
Uses pull-request examples and a 5P process diagram to illustrate objective review comments and suggestion decisions.
What it assumes
Assumes familiarity with code review and asks reviewers to justify suggestions using objective facts.
What you can do after
Practice/perform the 5P process to filter, justify, or defer proposed review changes.
How it connects
Connects code review comments with objective reasoning and a Team Working Agreement.

This explainer was generated by Manning's knowledge graph from the text of "Looks Good to Me". The section links point to the parts of the book it draws on.