Maybe We Shouldn't Be Reviewing All This Code
Post by **Rachel Laycock**, CTO of **Thoughtworks**, published on **September 2, 2026** on *Rachel's Ramblings*, the martinfowler.com section she runs, roughly **8,000 characters**. The text is a **deliberate response** to [[houck-dx-what-are-code-reviews-for-2026-08-05]], following a public disagreement between the two authors on a **Code Remix** panel hosted by **Moderne**. Laycock accepts Houck's quantified diagnosis (+**106%** lines per diff at **Meta**, +**64%** median PR size on the DX side) and the list of non-defect-finding functions of review, then shifts the question: *« why are we waiting until code review to do all of those things? »* (A) The guiding principle is the shortening of feedback loops learned at Thoughtworks — if feedback has value, don't remove it, move it closer to the decision it informs. Each function attributed to review is reassigned upstream: exploring alternatives before implementation, knowledge transfer through **pair programming**, collective ownership through **mob programming** and team design sessions, architectural alignment through shared design followed by **fitness functions**, and automation of everything deterministic — *« We really shouldn't still be arguing about whitespace in 2026. »* (B) Exception-based review replaces systematic review: a fundamental architectural change, a sensitive security boundary, a large blast radius, an unfamiliar area of a critical system, or simply a team's declared lack of confidence. (1) Automating review with an agent that mimics the human reviewer is dismissed as *« automating the ceremony rather than questioning why the ceremony exists »*. (2) Houck's cognitive debt is acknowledged as real, but the mandatory PR is judged a weak defense: *« We need engineers to understand systems, not diffs. »*
Rachel Laycock · CTO de Thoughtworks · sur *Rachel's Ramblings* (martinfowler.com).