Git PR Workflow & Code Review: How to Get Your PRs Reviewed Fast
You opened a PR titled "changes". No description, no context, no ticket link. Three days passed. Your team lead finally messaged you: "What's this for?" You explained it verbally. The review happened, but slower and less thoroughly than it should have. Here's how to prevent that.
GitHub Flow in one diagram
GitHub Flow has exactly five steps:
main
└── checkout feature branch
└── commit, commit, commit
└── open Pull Request
└── review & approve
└── merge to main → deployEverything happens at the PR step. That's where the quality gate is.
The PR description template
Copy this into every PR you open:
## What
One sentence summary of the change.
## Why
Ticket: [DEV-42](link-to-ticket)
Brief context, why does this change need to exist?
## How to Test
1. Checkout this branch
2. Run `pnpm dev`
3. Navigate to /login
4. Verify that [expected behavior]
## Screenshots (if UI change)
| Before | After |
|--------|-------|
| img | img |The goal: a reviewer can understand the change, test it, and approve it without asking you a single question.
Responding to code review
When a reviewer leaves a comment:
1. Respond to every comment, even just "Done" or "Good catch, fixed in the latest commit." Silence reads as ignoring.
2. Don't argue in comments. If you disagree, say "I see your point, but I went this way because [reason]. Open to discussion." Then have a call if needed.
3. Only resolve conversations after addressing them. Clicking "Resolve" before fixing is a trust killer.
4. Re-request review after pushing fixes. Don't expect reviewers to notice a new push. Click the re-request button next to their name.
Acceptance criteria
Before merging, every box must be checked:
PR title clearly describes the change (not "fix" or "update")
PR description fills all four sections: What, Why, How to Test, Screenshots (if UI)
PR is linked to the ticket
CI checks (lint, tests) pass before requesting review
All review comments responded to (not just silently resolved)
At least one approval before merge
You did NOT self-merge without a second pair of eyes
Common mistakes
Giant PRs (+500 lines). No one wants to review a novel. Keep PRs under 400 lines where possible.
Self-merging the moment you open the PR. At least one person should see the code.
Opening a PR and never following up. Ping reviewers politely after 24 hours if there's no response.
Recommended for you
- CollaborationHerdr
When Phone Approval of Coding Agents Earns Its Complexity
Approving agent decisions from your phone sounds nice but is usually the wrong answer. It pays off in exactly one scenario: long runs that block while you are away.
- CollaborationHerdrClaude Code
How I Stopped Losing Track of Which Agent Owns Which Task
Three agents in one workspace is where you stop knowing which agent owns which PR. One task, one branch, one worktree, one agent fixes it.
- CollaborationClaude CodeAmp
Why I Stopped Running Parallel Agents in the Same Repo
Agents sharing one workspace collide on branches, state, and review diffs. Sibling worktrees with a fresh base branch fix all three. Here is the setup.
- CollaborationHerdrClaude Code
When to Map One Agent to One Worktree to One Branch
Sharing a workspace across agents feels efficient but is the most expensive shortcut in a multi-agent workflow. Here is when one-to-one mapping earns its overhead.
Enjoyed this article?
Subscribe for new articles. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.