Code Review Best Practices: Focus on Maintainability, Not Correctness

Author here. After years building healthcare software, I noticed most teams treat code review as a quality gate—reviewers re-checking functionality, hunting bugs, re-verifying requirements.

That's duplicated work. The developer wrote it, the tester verified it. The reviewer's job is different: make sure the next developer can understand and maintain it.

The framework boils down to three questions: 1. Can I follow this? 2. Can I find this later? 3. Is this where I'd expect it?

Curious how others handle the tension between thoroughness and velocity. We landed on "one business day max to respond" as a forcing function—what's worked for your teams?