The initial reason why we have Leetcode today is that Google originally determined through their interview research that the smartest candidates were the ones who were best at algorithms. Google wanted to hire the smartest people, not necessarily the best coders, so that’s why their interviews were mostly algorithmic.
Of course everyone started copying Google without doing the same research and the message got lost. They just blindly asked coding algo questions and that’s why we have an entire industry built around coding algos and the signal is entirely lost now.
It’s funny that people have lost that intent and are now creating derivatives around that, ie thinking code reviews are a good replacement.
It might be, but there needs to be data done to research it to see if you get what you want. If you interview using code reviews, you get good code reviewers. If that’s what you want, great.
But remember that Google’s initial goal was to hire smart people, and there’s no research to suggest that good code reviewers are smarter than average.