Start with the decisions that cause friction
Review rules are useful when they resolve a recurring ambiguity. Who should review an authorization change? Does a suggestion block merging? What happens if the reviewer is unavailable? Start with those questions rather than writing a broad policy that nobody consults during normal development.
Ask the team to examine a few recent review conversations. Look for places where the delay came from unclear expectations rather than difficult code. Write the smallest rule that would have made the next action obvious. A rule earns its place when a developer can use it without scheduling another meeting.
Label the intention of feedback
Authors should be able to tell whether a comment identifies a defect, requests clarification, or offers an optional improvement. Agree on a small vocabulary and use it consistently. The label should reflect the evidence and the effect on this change, not the seniority or confidence of the person writing.
For example, a blocking comment should state the failure that must be addressed. A question should identify the missing information needed for a decision. An optional suggestion should remain optional unless new evidence changes its significance. Avoid resolving disagreement by accumulating more comments that repeat the same preference in different language.
- Blocking: a demonstrated issue or required condition prevents approval.
- Question: a specific uncertainty must be resolved before deciding.
- Suggestion: an improvement the author may reasonably defer.
- Follow-up: separately tracked work with an owner and a clear scope.
Define how AI enters the conversation
Treat AI output as input to the same review standards. The person forwarding a finding should verify its reference and explain whether the reasoning has been checked. Do not make authors argue with an unexplained machine verdict or assume that accepting all suggestions is the fastest path to approval.
AntiCode offers manual reviews and personal finding triage. It does not currently provide shared team administration or enforce GitHub merge rules. Use your existing repository and collaboration systems to assign owners, document decisions, and enforce approvals. Keep personal dashboard organization distinct from the team's actual agreement about what may merge.
Write the freshness and escalation rules
State what happens after a reviewed change is updated. Identify which edits require another look and how the author should notify the reviewer. Repository settings can help enforce review requirements, but the human agreement should still make sense when someone reads a pull-request conversation without inspecting the settings.
Finish with an escalation path that does not rely on guessing. If the expected reviewer is unavailable, name a role or backup process. If a disagreement persists, summarize the competing requirements and ask the responsible owner for a decision. Revisit the rules when they repeatedly produce confusion. The aim is a process that protects important decisions while leaving routine collaboration straightforward.
Further reading
Put it into practice
Start with a small change you are authorized to review. Follow the AntiCode setup guide, inspect each finding, and keep your tests and human approval in the loop.