Requesting Code Reviews: Phrases for PRs & Peer Review
5 exercises on key code review phrases. Choose the most natural and professional option.
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
You've opened a PR and want to ask a colleague to review it without pressure. Which phrase works best?
Could you take a look at this PR when you get a chance? This phrase is both polite and realistic — it signals you're not demanding immediate attention. "Could you" is a professional softener. "When you get a chance" respects the reviewer's schedule. Option A ("as soon as possible") is fine if urgent, but often overused and can feel pressuring. Option B is too directive. Option D is grammatically correct but blunt — it reads more like an order than a request. In async team environments, respecting reviewers' time builds trust and gets faster responses.
2 / 5
In your PR description, you want to direct the reviewer's attention to a specific design decision. Which phrase is most precise?
I'd especially appreciate feedback on the approach to... This phrase is professional and targeted. "Especially appreciate" signals that this area matters most without dismissing the rest. "The approach to" frames it as a design question rather than a bug hunt, inviting substantive discussion. Option B is fine but lacks the collaborative framing. Option C ("I'm not sure") introduces uncertainty that may alarm reviewers unnecessarily. Option D ("might be wrong") is self-undermining and vague. In PR descriptions, directing attention to specific areas saves reviewers' time and produces more useful feedback.
3 / 5
You've written a detailed PR description with context on why and how you made the changes. Which phrase best introduces it?
I've added a description of the changes... This phrase is professional and informative — it tells reviewers what to expect from your description and signals that you've thought about the why, not just the what. Mentioning "context" and "reasoning" encourages reviewers to engage with your intent, leading to better discussion. Option A is too bare — it doesn't signal the value of the description. Option B is commanding and slightly rude. Option C is reactive ("if you have questions") rather than proactive. Good PR communication front-loads context so reviewers can review efficiently.
4 / 5
You've opened a PR but it's still in progress and not ready for review. How do you communicate this clearly?
The PR is draft — not ready for review yet. Using the word "draft" is the professional standard — most platforms (GitHub, GitLab) have a formal Draft PR status. Saying "The PR is draft" aligns with tooling vocabulary your teammates already know. "Not ready for review yet" gives clear context. Option A is abrupt and unfriendly. Option C ("don't merge it") focuses on the wrong risk. Option D is true but vague — it doesn't say what you want the reviewer to do (or not do). Always use "draft" to signal WIP status in modern dev teams.
5 / 5
What does "PTAL" mean in a code review message like "I've addressed your comments — PTAL"?
Please Take Another Look. PTAL is a standard abbreviation used in code review culture, particularly on teams at large tech companies, to signal that you've responded to a reviewer's comments and want them to re-review. It's more specific than "LGTM" (Looks Good To Me) or "please review" — it acknowledges a prior review cycle. Option A ("Please Take A Look") is the similar but different abbreviation "PTAL" used for an initial review. Option B and D are invented. Using PTAL correctly shows familiarity with code review workflow norms in English-speaking teams.