Review the code, not the coder.
Specific, evidence-based feedback improves the change without reducing the person.
Interpretation
Code review is a collaboration around an artifact, not a verdict on intelligence. Describe the observed risk, connect it to a principle or requirement, and invite alternatives. Respectful precision makes disagreement useful and leaves room for both reviewer and author to be wrong.
Practice
- Comment on behavior and impact, not assumed motive.
- Distinguish blocking concerns from preferences.
- Offer a question or concrete alternative.
Anti-pattern
“You clearly do not understand concurrency” as review feedback.