> All work should be checked through an independent and impartial review. In engineering and manufacturing, industry spends large sums on quality control.

I feel that the code reviews I’ve been a part of were not as effective as they could have been. I think there is social awkwardness at criticizing design or conceptual aspects, and a multitasking aspect that means the reviewer is in a hurry and mostly checks conformity to the style guide. Very little checking out of branches and manual testing happened, so we had more regressions than expected.

Is this the norm? What practices have you seen that lead to better results?