Skip to main content

Pull Request Design Review Process

Learn how to implement effective design review processes using pull requests to ensure architectural quality and team alignment throughout the design phase.

Learning Objectives​

After completing this module, you will be able to:

✅ Structure Design PRs - Organize design documents for effective review
✅ Review Architecture - Evaluate system designs for quality and feasibility
✅ Provide Feedback - Give constructive, actionable design feedback
✅ Iterate on Designs - Refine architectures based on team input
✅ Document Decisions - Capture architectural decisions and rationale

Design Review Workflow​

Design PR Structure​

Branch Naming Convention​

# Feature-based design branches
design/user-authentication-system
design/payment-processing-architecture
design/notification-service-design

# Epic-based design branches  
design/mobile-app-architecture
design/microservices-migration
design/security-infrastructure

Design PR Template​

# Design Review: [Architecture Name]

## Summary
Brief description of the architectural design and its purpose.

## Context
- **Business Requirements**: What business problem does this solve?
- **Technical Requirements**: What technical constraints must be met?
- **Success Criteria**: How will we measure success?

## Architecture Overview

### High-Level Design
```mermaid
[Include main architecture diagram]

Key Components​

ComponentResponsibilityTechnologyRationale

Data Flow​

Design Decisions​

Decision 1: [Technology Choice]​

  • Options Considered: A, B, C
  • Decision: Chose option B
  • Rationale: [Detailed reasoning]
  • Trade-offs: [Benefits vs costs]

Decision 2: [Architecture Pattern]​

  • Options Considered: Pattern X, Pattern Y
  • Decision: Chose Pattern X
  • Rationale: [Detailed reasoning]
  • Trade-offs: [Benefits vs costs]

Quality Attributes​

Performance​

  • Expected Load: [Specifications]
  • Response Time: [Targets]
  • Scalability Plan: [Strategy]

Security​

  • Authentication: [Approach]
  • Authorization: [Model]
  • Data Protection: [Strategy]

Reliability​

  • Availability Target: [SLA]
  • Fault Tolerance: [Strategy]
  • Disaster Recovery: [Plan]

Implementation Plan​

Phase 1: Foundation​

  • Set up core infrastructure
  • Implement authentication
  • Create basic API structure

Phase 2: Core Features​

  • Implement business logic
  • Add data persistence
  • Create user interfaces

Phase 3: Enhancement​

  • Add monitoring
  • Implement caching
  • Performance optimization

Risks and Mitigation​

RiskImpactProbabilityMitigation Strategy

Review Checklist​

Architecture Quality​

  • Meets functional requirements
  • Addresses non-functional requirements
  • Follows established patterns
  • Considers scalability
  • Includes security measures

Documentation Quality​

  • Clear and comprehensive
  • Includes visual diagrams
  • Documents key decisions
  • Provides implementation guidance
  • Addresses potential risks

Questions for Reviewers​

  1. Does this architecture meet the stated requirements?
  2. Are there any scalability concerns?
  3. Have we considered all security implications?
  4. Is the technology stack appropriate?
  5. Are there simpler alternatives we should consider?

Reviewers: @architect @tech-lead @security-expert Estimated Review Time: 2-3 hours Implementation Timeline: [Duration]


## Review Process Guidelines

### For Design Authors

#### Before Creating the PR

1. **Complete the Design**
   - Ensure all major components are defined
   - Include comprehensive diagrams
   - Document key decisions with rationale
   - Consider alternative approaches

2. **Self-Review Checklist**
   ```markdown
   - [ ] Architecture addresses all requirements
   - [ ] Diagrams are clear and accurate
   - [ ] Technology choices are justified
   - [ ] Security considerations are included
   - [ ] Scalability plan is defined
   - [ ] Implementation plan is realistic
   - [ ] Risks are identified and mitigated
  1. Prepare Supporting Materials
    • Create proof-of-concept code if needed
    • Gather performance benchmarks
    • Research technology alternatives
    • Prepare cost estimates

During the Review Process​

  1. Respond Promptly

    • Address feedback within 24-48 hours
    • Ask clarifying questions when needed
    • Provide additional context if requested

  2. Be Open to Feedback

    • Consider all suggestions seriously
    • Explain your reasoning when disagreeing
    • Be willing to revise the design

  3. Update Documentation

    • Keep diagrams synchronized with changes
    • Update decision records
    • Revise implementation plans as needed

For Design Reviewers​

Review Preparation​

  1. Understand the Context

    • Read the business requirements
    • Review related existing systems
    • Understand the team's capabilities
    • Consider the project timeline

  2. Review Methodology

    1. **First Pass**: Overall architecture and approach
    2. **Second Pass**: Detailed component design
    3. **Third Pass**: Implementation feasibility
    4. **Final Pass**: Documentation quality

Review Criteria​

Architecture Quality (40%)​
  • Requirements Alignment: Does the design meet all stated requirements?
  • Pattern Appropriateness: Are the chosen patterns suitable for the problem?
  • Component Cohesion: Are components well-defined with clear responsibilities?
  • Interface Design: Are APIs and contracts well-designed?
Technical Soundness (30%)​
  • Technology Choices: Are technology selections appropriate and justified?
  • Scalability: Can the system handle expected growth?
  • Performance: Will the system meet performance requirements?
  • Security: Are security concerns adequately addressed?
Implementation Feasibility (20%)​
  • Team Capabilities: Can the team implement this design?
  • Timeline Realism: Is the implementation plan achievable?
  • Resource Requirements: Are resource needs reasonable?
  • Risk Management: Are risks properly identified and mitigated?
Documentation Quality (10%)​
  • Clarity: Is the design clearly explained?
  • Completeness: Are all important aspects covered?
  • Visual Aids: Do diagrams effectively communicate the design?
  • Decision Rationale: Are key decisions well-justified?

Providing Feedback​

Feedback Categories​

🔴 Blocking Issues - Must be addressed before approval

**🔴 Security Concern**: The proposed authentication mechanism doesn't 
address session management. Please add details about session storage, 
expiration, and invalidation strategies.

🟡 Suggestions - Should be considered but not blocking

**🟡 Performance Optimization**: Consider adding a caching layer between 
the API and database. This could significantly improve response times 
for read-heavy operations.

🟢 Enhancements - Nice to have improvements

**🟢 Future Enhancement**: While not required for MVP, consider how this 
architecture could support real-time notifications in the future.

❓ Questions - Need clarification

**❓ Clarification**: How will the system handle database migrations in 
production? Please add details about the deployment strategy.
Effective Feedback Principles​

  1. Be Specific

    ❌ "The database design is problematic"
    ✅ "The User table lacks proper indexing on the email field, which 
        will cause performance issues during login operations"

  2. Provide Context

    ✅ "Based on our experience with similar systems, this approach may 
        lead to tight coupling. Consider using an event-driven pattern 
        to decouple the services."

  3. Suggest Solutions

    ✅ "Instead of direct database calls, consider implementing a 
        repository pattern to abstract data access and improve testability."

  4. Reference Standards

    ✅ "This doesn't align with our established security guidelines. 
        Please review the Security Architecture Standards document."

Design Review Templates​

Architecture Review Checklist​

## Architecture Review Checklist

### Requirements Compliance
- [ ] All functional requirements addressed
- [ ] Non-functional requirements considered
- [ ] Business constraints respected
- [ ] Technical constraints acknowledged

### Design Quality
- [ ] Appropriate architecture patterns used
- [ ] Clear separation of concerns
- [ ] Loose coupling between components
- [ ] High cohesion within components
- [ ] Scalability considerations included

### Technology Decisions
- [ ] Technology choices justified
- [ ] Alternatives considered and documented
- [ ] Team expertise alignment
- [ ] Long-term maintainability considered
- [ ] Licensing and cost implications reviewed

### Security & Compliance
- [ ] Authentication mechanism defined
- [ ] Authorization model specified
- [ ] Data protection measures included
- [ ] Audit trail capabilities planned
- [ ] Regulatory compliance addressed

### Implementation Readiness
- [ ] Implementation plan is realistic
- [ ] Dependencies identified
- [ ] Resource requirements specified
- [ ] Timeline is achievable
- [ ] Risks identified and mitigated

### Documentation Quality
- [ ] Architecture clearly explained
- [ ] Diagrams are accurate and helpful
- [ ] Key decisions documented
- [ ] Implementation guidance provided
- [ ] Future considerations noted

Review Summary Template​

## Design Review Summary

**Architecture**: [Name]
**Reviewer**: [Name]
**Review Date**: [Date]
**Overall Assessment**: ✅ Approved / 🟡 Approved with Changes / ❌ Needs Revision

### Strengths
- [What works well in this design]
- [Positive aspects to highlight]

### Areas for Improvement
- [Specific issues that need attention]
- [Suggestions for enhancement]

### Blocking Issues
- [ ] [Issue 1 - must be resolved]
- [ ] [Issue 2 - must be resolved]

### Recommendations
- [Specific actionable recommendations]
- [Alternative approaches to consider]

### Next Steps
- [What the author should do next]
- [Timeline for addressing feedback]

Common Design Review Scenarios​

Scenario 1: Microservices vs Monolith Decision​

Context: Team proposing microservices for a new application

Review Questions:

  • What's the team size and experience level?
  • What's the expected system complexity?
  • Are there clear service boundaries?
  • How will you handle distributed system challenges?

Common Feedback:

🟡 **Architecture Complexity**: While microservices offer scalability 
benefits, consider starting with a modular monolith given the team size 
(3 developers) and timeline constraints. You can extract services later 
when clear boundaries emerge.

**Suggested Approach**: 
1. Start with modular monolith
2. Identify service boundaries through usage patterns
3. Extract services when team grows or clear scaling needs emerge

Scenario 2: Database Technology Selection​

Context: Choosing between SQL and NoSQL databases

Review Questions:

  • What are the data consistency requirements?
  • How complex are the relationships?
  • What are the scalability requirements?
  • What's the team's expertise?

Common Feedback:

🔴 **Data Consistency**: The proposed NoSQL solution doesn't address 
the strong consistency requirements for financial transactions. 
PostgreSQL with proper indexing would be more appropriate.

**Recommendation**: Use PostgreSQL for transactional data and consider 
Redis for caching and session storage.

Scenario 3: Security Architecture Review​

Context: Authentication and authorization design

Review Questions:

  • How are credentials stored and validated?
  • What's the session management strategy?
  • How is authorization enforced?
  • Are there audit trail requirements?

Common Feedback:

🔴 **Security Gap**: The design doesn't specify how API tokens are 
refreshed or revoked. Please add:
1. Token refresh mechanism
2. Token revocation strategy
3. Session timeout handling
4. Audit logging for authentication events

Advanced Review Techniques​

Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)​

Create ADRs for significant design decisions:

# ADR-001: Use PostgreSQL for Primary Database

## Status
Accepted

## Context
We need to choose a primary database for our e-commerce platform that 
handles user data, product catalog, and order processing.

## Decision
We will use PostgreSQL as our primary database.

## Consequences

### Positive
- ACID compliance for financial transactions
- Rich query capabilities for complex reporting
- Strong ecosystem and tooling
- Team has extensive PostgreSQL experience

### Negative
- May require horizontal scaling strategies for high growth
- More complex than NoSQL for simple key-value operations

### Neutral
- Will need to implement caching layer for performance optimization

Design Workshops​

Conduct collaborative design sessions:

## Design Workshop Agenda

### Pre-Workshop (1 week before)
- [ ] Share requirements document
- [ ] Distribute architecture options
- [ ] Assign pre-reading materials

### Workshop Session (2-3 hours)
1. **Requirements Review** (30 min)
   - Clarify functional requirements
   - Discuss non-functional requirements
   - Identify constraints

2. **Architecture Options** (60 min)
   - Present 2-3 architecture alternatives
   - Discuss pros/cons of each
   - Identify key decision points

3. **Decision Making** (45 min)
   - Use decision matrices
   - Vote on key decisions
   - Document rationale

4. **Next Steps** (15 min)
   - Assign action items
   - Set follow-up timeline
   - Plan implementation approach

### Post-Workshop
- [ ] Document decisions in ADRs
- [ ] Create detailed architecture document
- [ ] Schedule implementation planning session

Measuring Review Effectiveness​

Review Metrics​

Track these metrics to improve your review process:

MetricTargetPurpose
Review Turnaround Time< 48 hoursEnsure timely feedback
Defects Found in Review> 80% of totalCatch issues early
Implementation Changes< 20%Validate design quality
Review Participation100% of architectsEnsure knowledge sharing

Review Quality Indicators​

High-Quality Reviews:

  • Identify architectural risks early
  • Provide specific, actionable feedback
  • Consider multiple perspectives
  • Balance perfectionism with pragmatism
  • Foster learning and knowledge sharing

Low-Quality Reviews:

  • Focus only on minor details
  • Provide vague or unhelpful feedback
  • Miss significant architectural issues
  • Create unnecessary delays
  • Generate conflict without resolution

Tools and Automation​

Review Automation​

# .github/workflows/design-review.yml
name: Design Review Automation

on:
  pull_request:
    paths:
      - 'docs/architecture/**'
      - 'docs/design/**'

jobs:
  design-review-checks:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v3
      
      - name: Validate Mermaid Diagrams
        run: |
          npm install -g @mermaid-js/mermaid-cli
          find . -name "*.md" -exec grep -l "```mermaid" {} \; | \
          xargs -I {} mmdc -i {} --dry-run
      
      - name: Check Architecture Document Structure
        run: |
          python scripts/validate-architecture-docs.py
      
      - name: Generate Review Checklist
        run: |
          python scripts/generate-review-checklist.py

Review Dashboard​

Create a dashboard to track design review status:

## Design Review Dashboard

### Active Reviews
| PR | Architecture | Author | Reviewers | Status | Days Open |
|----|--------------|--------|-----------|--------|-----------|
| #123 | Payment System | @alice | @bob, @charlie | 🟡 In Review | 2 |
| #124 | User Auth | @david | @eve, @frank | 🔴 Changes Requested | 5 |

### Review Metrics (Last 30 Days)
- **Average Review Time**: 1.8 days
- **Reviews Completed**: 12
- **Issues Found**: 34
- **Implementation Changes**: 15%

### Top Reviewers
1. @bob - 8 reviews, 2.1 day avg
2. @charlie - 6 reviews, 1.5 day avg
3. @eve - 5 reviews, 2.3 day avg

Next Steps​

Continue Your Design Journey​

  1. Technical Blueprints - Create detailed implementation specifications
  2. OpenAPI Specification - Design and document your APIs
  3. Implementation Planning - Move from design to development

Apply Your Knowledge​

Remember: Great design reviews are collaborative, constructive, and focused on building better systems together.