5 exercises — Professional email communication around code reviews: responding to feedback, requesting re-reviews, writing approvals, and following up on stalled PRs.
0 / 14 completed
1 / 14
You submitted a PR and a reviewer left this comment: "This approach seems inefficient." You disagree and have profiling data to prove your point. How do you respond by email?
Effective pushback on code review feedback: acknowledge the concern, lead with data, offer collaboration.
Structure of a professional technical disagreement by email:
1. Acknowledge: "I see your concern about…" — shows you read and understood
2. Evidence: specific numbers from profiling (12ms vs 18ms)
3. Collaborative offer: "Happy to walk through… if that would help" — keeps the tone collegial
What to avoid:
• "You're wrong" — confrontational, damages the relationship
• Just capitulating — silent acceptance of incorrect feedback erodes code quality
• "I don't think" — too weak; data is more persuasive than opinion
Key vocabulary:
• benchmark — a test that measures performance under defined conditions
• profiler output — data from a profiling tool showing where time is spent
• "walk through" — to explain something step by step
• collegial — friendly and cooperative among colleagues
2 / 14
A reviewer left 12 comments on your PR, including 3 blocking ones. You've addressed all of them. Which email to the reviewer is most professional?
A re-review request should make the reviewer's job easy: tell them what changed, where, and why.
The ideal re-review request includes:
• Scope summary: "addressed all 12 comments"
• Blocking issues resolved: named with commit references
• Non-blocking items: acknowledged (shows you read them, even if not acted on)
• Polite ask: "when you have a moment" — respects their time
Why linking to commits is important:
• Reviewers can jump directly to the relevant diff
• Shows traceability — each change is documented
• Prevents "where did you change X?" back-and-forth
Key vocabulary:
• blocking issue — a comment that must be resolved before the PR can be merged
• non-blocking — a suggestion the author can accept or decline at their discretion
• acknowledged inline — replied to within the PR thread (even if not acted on)
• commit reference / SHA — the unique identifier for a specific git commit
3 / 14
You are the reviewer and want to send a summary email after approving a large architectural PR. Which message is most useful?
A meaningful approval does more than unblock the PR — it teaches, reinforces good patterns, and opens dialogue.
What a great approval message includes:
• Explicit decision: "Approved" — unambiguous
• Specific praise: "solid implementation of the event sourcing pattern" — names what was done well
• Forward-looking guidance: "worth considering before the next event-driven feature" — helps the author improve
• Reference to specific comments: #4 and #7 — reviewable
• Offer to discuss: "happy to discuss offline" — collegial
Why "LGTM 👍" is insufficient for large architectural PRs:
• No learning opportunity for the author
• No documentation of what was reviewed
• No guidance for future similar work
Key vocabulary:
• LGTM — "Looks Good To Me" — approval abbreviation, fine for small PRs
• architectural PR — a pull request making significant structural changes to the codebase
• aggregate naming convention — naming rules for domain objects in event-driven or DDD architecture
• "offline" — in a separate meeting or direct conversation, outside the PR thread
4 / 14
A PR has been stuck in review for 5 days with no response. You need to send a follow-up. Which message is most effective?
A professional follow-up on a stalled PR: state the facts, explain the business impact, offer a solution, and make it easy for the reviewer to respond.
Elements of an effective follow-up:
• Specific reference: "PR #432" — no ambiguity about which PR
• Timeline: "since Monday" — factual, not accusatory
• Business impact: "blocking the Q3 onboarding feature" — gives urgency a reason
• Request with alternative: "or suggest another reviewer if you're overloaded" — gives them an out
• Offer to help: "happy to walk through the changes" — reduces the reviewer's activation energy
What to avoid:
• Accusatory tone: "Why haven't you…" makes people defensive
• "ASAP" and "urgent" without context — overused and lose meaning
• Merging without review — skips the safety net
Key vocabulary:
• stalled PR — a pull request that hasn't been reviewed or progressed
• blocking — preventing another piece of work from being completed
• "overloaded" — too busy to take on additional work
• "activation energy" — the effort required to start a task
5 / 14
After a difficult code review where several heated comments were exchanged, you want to send a follow-up to the reviewer to reset the relationship. Which message is best?
A relationship-repair message after a difficult review: acknowledge the difficulty, find the genuine positive, be specific about what you learned.
Why Option C works:
• Acknowledges the tension: "I know some of the back-and-forth was tense" — validates both experiences
• Finds genuine appreciation: "I appreciate that you care about the architecture" — attributes positive intent
• Specific learning: "your comments on the event boundary design" — shows you actually read and valued the feedback
• Forward-looking: "will apply that thinking in future PRs" — closes the loop professionally
Why the others fall short:
• Option A reopens the conflict ("unfair")
• Option B is dismissive — "no hard feelings" doesn't acknowledge or repair
• Option D is too vague — "more collaboratively" doesn't name what you appreciated
Key vocabulary:
• "back-and-forth" — an exchange of responses, especially a tense or lengthy one
• "attribute positive intent" — assume the other person meant well, even if the delivery was rough
• "close the loop" — complete a conversation or task so all parties feel it's resolved
• "event boundary design" — in domain-driven design, how events are scoped between bounded contexts
6 / 14
Sarah submitted a PR containing a new API endpoint for user authentication. The reviewer, Mark, left this comment: "I'm concerned about the lack of rate limiting on this endpoint; it could easily be abused.". You believe your implementation *does* include rate limiting and have attached a screenshot from the monitoring dashboard showing usage within acceptable limits. Which of the following email responses is most appropriate to send to Mark?
The best approach here is to acknowledge Mark's concern and offer supporting evidence directly. Option A is dismissive and unprofessional; option B avoids addressing the issue. Option C politely provides the data while inviting further discussion – crucial for a code review. Option D is confrontational and doesn't provide any justification, escalating the situation unnecessarily. Demonstrating that you understand his worry and backing it up with concrete information fosters collaboration.
7 / 14
Sarah submitted a PR containing a new API endpoint for user authentication. The reviewer, Mark, left this comment: "I'm concerned about the lack of rate limiting on this endpoint; it could easily be abused.". You believe your implementation *does* include rate limiting and have attached a screenshot from the monitoring dashboard showing usage within acceptable limits. Which of the following email responses is most appropriate to send to Mark?
The best approach here is to acknowledge Mark's concern and offer supporting evidence directly. Option A is dismissive and unprofessional; option B avoids addressing the issue. Option C politely provides the data while inviting further discussion – crucial for a code review. Option D is confrontational and doesn't provide any justification, escalating the situation unnecessarily. Demonstrating that you understand his worry and backing it up with concrete information fosters collaboration.
8 / 14
Sarah submitted a PR containing a new API endpoint for user authentication. The reviewer, Mark, left this comment: "I'm concerned about the lack of rate limiting on this endpoint; it could easily be abused.". You believe your implementation *does* include rate limiting and have attached a screenshot from the monitoring dashboard showing usage within acceptable limits. Which of the following email responses is most appropriate to send to Mark?
The best approach here is to acknowledge Mark's concern and offer supporting evidence directly. Option A is dismissive and unprofessional; option B avoids addressing the issue. Option C politely provides the data while inviting further discussion – crucial for a code review. Option D is confrontational and doesn't provide any justification, escalating the situation unnecessarily. Demonstrating that you understand his worry and backing it up with concrete information fosters collaboration.
9 / 14
Sarah submitted a PR containing a new API endpoint for user authentication. The reviewer, Mark, left this comment: "I'm concerned about the lack of rate limiting on this endpoint; it could easily be abused.". You believe your implementation *does* include rate limiting and have attached a screenshot from the monitoring dashboard showing usage within acceptable limits. Which of the following email responses is most appropriate to send to Mark?
The best approach here is to acknowledge Mark's concern and offer supporting evidence directly. Option A is dismissive and unprofessional; option B avoids addressing the issue. Option C politely provides the data while inviting further discussion – crucial for a code review. Option D is confrontational and doesn't provide any justification, escalating the situation unnecessarily. Demonstrating that you understand his worry and backing it up with concrete information fosters collaboration.
10 / 14
Alex submitted a PR introducing a new feature flag. Ben, the reviewer, commented: 'This flag is too broad; it impacts several modules and increases complexity.' Alex wants to explain that he considered the impact but believes the benefits outweigh the risks. Which of the following email responses is most appropriate?
Option 2 demonstrates a proactive approach by acknowledging the reviewer's concern and stating that Alex has already considered the impact. This shows respect for Ben's feedback while subtly reinforcing Alex's decision-making process. Options A & D are too dismissive or confrontational. Option B lacks detail and doesn't invite further discussion.
11 / 14
David is reviewing a PR containing a complex algorithm for data processing. The reviewer, Emily, leaves a comment: 'This algorithm's time complexity is O(n^2). Can you provide more optimization?' David needs to respond professionally and constructively. Which email is best?
Option 1 demonstrates that David addressed Emily's concern and improved the algorithm. It shows a willingness to collaborate and highlights the positive outcome of the review. Option 2 is the most constructive, inviting further discussion and specific suggestions for improvement – crucial for code reviews. Options A & C are either boastful or dismissive without demonstrating understanding. Option B frames the question poorly.
12 / 14
Frank has submitted a PR containing changes to the user authentication service. The reviewer, Grace, comments: 'I'm concerned about the lack of input validation on this endpoint; it's vulnerable to injection attacks.' Frank needs to respond quickly and appropriately. Which of the following is the most effective response?
Option 2 shows immediate action and demonstrates an understanding of Grace's concern. It directly addresses the vulnerability and promises to implement necessary security measures. This response is professional, proactive, and crucial when a reviewer identifies a potential issue. Options A & D are dismissive or provide inadequate justification for the lack of validation. Option B is too vague.
13 / 14
Henry wants to send a follow-up email regarding a PR that has been stuck in review for three days. The reviewer, Isabelle, hasn't responded. Which of the following emails is most professional and effective?
Option 1 is polite and professional, gently reminding Isabelle of the pending PR without being demanding or accusatory. It invites further discussion and offers assistance if needed. Options A & C are too formal or suggestive. Option B is overly aggressive and could damage the relationship.
14 / 14
Jack had a difficult code review with Karen where there were several disagreements. Jack wants to send Karen an email to reset the relationship and move forward constructively. Which of the following emails best achieves this goal?
Option 2 demonstrates a willingness to move past the disagreement and prioritize collaboration. It acknowledges Karen's efforts while setting a positive tone for future interactions. This approach is crucial for rebuilding trust after a tense review. Options A & C are confrontational and unproductive. Option B is passive-aggressive.
What does the "Code Review Emails — Email Writing for IT Professionals" exercise cover?
Practice writing professional emails in code review contexts: responding to feedback, requesting re-review, writing approval messages, and following up on stalled PRs.
Is this exercise free to use?
Yes. Every exercise on CoderSlingo, including this one, is free to use with no account, sign-up, or paywall.
How many questions are in "Code Review Emails — Email Writing for IT Professionals"?
This exercise has 14 questions. Each one gives instant feedback with an explanation, so you can see exactly why an answer is right or wrong.
Do I need to create an account to save my progress?
No account is required. The progress bar and score are tracked in your browser for the current session -- the exercise is designed to be a quick, repeatable drill rather than something you resume later.
What happens if I get an answer wrong?
You'll see the correct answer highlighted immediately, along with a short explanation of why it's correct. Wrong answers aren't penalized beyond your score, and you can keep going through every question.
How is this exercise different from reading an article?
Articles explain vocabulary and concepts through prose, while exercises like this one are interactive drills -- multiple-choice questions -- that test and reinforce your recall of specific terms and phrasing.
Can I retry this exercise?
Yes -- use the "Try again" button on the results screen to reset your score and go through all the questions again from the start.
Where can I find more Email & Writing exercises?
Browse the full Email & Writing hub for related drills, or check the site-wide exercises index for other IT English topics.
Is this exercise suitable for beginners?
This exercise assumes basic familiarity with IT terminology. If a term feels unfamiliar, check the site Glossary for a plain-English definition before attempting the questions.
How often is new content like this published?
New exercises are added regularly across all categories, alongside new vocabulary sets and articles. Check back on the exercises hub to see what's new.