Pull Requests: The LEGO Blocks of Software Delivery

But let's be honest — we've all been there, reviewing a PR so big that you start questioning your career choices. I have been in situations where, I was handed a 5000+ line PR from a junior dev. It took 2–3 hours for every review cycle. With each round of feedback, the PR got bigger (yes, bigger). The rationale? "It was easier to look at all the changes in one shot." Spoiler alert: it wasn't.

Each time I opened that PR, my confidence in approving it dropped another 10%. One week, multiple rounds of review, and it's still in limbo. The PR took 15 days to merge and in software world, that's a lot of time. Compare that to another 2000+ line PR from a senior dev — better scoped, fewer review cycles, faster closure. The difference? Not experience alone, but PR craftsmanship.

Think of PRs like LEGO sets or building in Minecraft. Each brick matters. But to see the castle come to life, you need a plan — a clear structure, the right order, and just enough detail for someone else to follow along and say, "Ah, I see where this is going."

Let me break it down:

Aim for 50–100 lines of change for simple fixes, max 200–400 lines even for more complex features.

Why? Smaller PRs:

1. Are easier to review and test
2. Have fewer merge conflicts
3. Are easier to revert
4. Get merged faster

"Fix login redirect bug" > "Bug fix"

Your PR description is your elevator pitch. Tell the story:

1. What was the problem?
2. What did you change?
3. Why did you choose this approach?
4. Any trade-offs?
5. Link tickets, screenshots, logs — make it reviewer-ready.

Don’t just slap "update" or "fix issue". Use this conventional commits format: type(scope): summary Example: fix(auth): handle redirect after token expiry on mobile

These little messages help during debugging, bisecting, and understanding project history.

Point out where reviewers should focus. Explain any tricky logic. And if it’s a UI change? Add screenshots or a GIF — don’t make them pull your branch just to see the color of a button.

Before clicking "Create PR", I always pretend I'm the reviewer:

1. Do I have context?
2. Are tests present?
3. Is the code clean?
4. Any logs or debug prints?
5. Are repo standards followed?

A PR is a product. Make the buying decision (a.k.a. approval) easy:

1. Clear context
2. Minimal scope
3. Less back-and-forth

No one wants to review a PR that fixes a bug, adds a feature, refactors half the codebase, and updates dependencies. Break it down. Scope your work like chapters in a book.

Refactors are fine. But do them first, in a separate PR. That way, your feature PR is clean and easy to digest.

Reply politely. Clarify if something’s unclear. Don’t ghost comments. Build trust with your reviewers.

Let’s talk data. Because what gets measured, gets improved.

Tracking these gave our team insights we never had before. We saw how long PRs sat idle, how experts were being overloaded, and how junior devs needed clearer goals. Once we started measuring, we never went back.

My first PR? It got flagged for being too big. I broke it into 10 atomic PRs. Yes, it created some merge conflicts, but I was merging something every 30 minutes. That momentum? It felt like progress.

But here’s the nuance: sometimes, juniors split things so much that the individual PRs don’t make sense on their own. Like scattering LEGO bricks with no instructions. The art lies in vertical slicing — every PR should build toward something visible and meaningful.

Remember:

1. Ship in slices
2. Communicate context
3. Respect the reviewer
4. Let metrics guide improvement

Great PRs aren’t just good habits. They’re culture. They’re the difference between chaos and craftsmanship.

So, next time you open a PR, ask yourself: "Would I enjoy reviewing this?" If yes, hit that button. If not, polish it until you do.