Reviewing a large volume of pull requests effectively is about triaging by risk and impact first, then applying a consistent process so quality doesn't drop as the queue grows.
Key Points: • Prioritize pull requests by urgency and blast radius, reviewing anything blocking a release or touching critical paths first. • Use a consistent checklist covering functionality, coding standards, tests, and security, so reviews don't miss the same categories inconsistently. • Let automated tools (linters, static analysis, CI test runs) catch routine mechanical issues, freeing human review time for logic and design concerns. • Time-box review sessions rather than trying to review everything in one sitting, since reviewer fatigue leads to missed issues. • Give clear, specific, and constructive feedback, since vague comments slow down the author and often need a second round anyway.
Example: A team lead sorts open PRs by whether they block the current release, reviews those first against a shared checklist, relies on CI and a linter to flag style issues automatically, and batches the rest into a couple of focused 30-minute review sessions per day.
Interview Tip: A concise interview answer is:
"I'd prioritize by urgency and risk first, then work through a consistent checklist so nothing gets missed as the queue grows. Automated linting and CI checks handle the routine issues, which frees me to focus review time on logic, design, and security concerns, with clear feedback so authors aren't stuck guessing."