But don’t rely on manual code reviews alone
Manual review is rarely quick. In large projects, a single pull request might take hours to review thoroughly, and that can delay delivery. And because it’s a human process, it’s vulnerable to oversight, even the most experienced reviewers can miss subtle issues, especially when reviewing repetitive boilerplate or under tight deadlines.
In Microsoft’s research report, Expectations, Outcomes and Challenges of Modern Code Review, it states: “There is a mismatch between the expectations and the actual outcomes of code reviews. From our study, review does not result in identifying defects as often as project members would like and even more rarely detects deep, subtle, or ‘macro’-level issues.”
Consistency is another challenge. Different reviewers may have different priorities or tolerances for “good enough” code, leading to uneven quality standards over time.
This is where automated review can pick up the slack, enforcing rules objectively and at scale. For example, Qodana could flag this risk automatically:
// Potential null pointer issue
String name = user.getName().toUpperCase(); // NPE riskCatching what humans miss with automated static code analysis
Automated review through static code analysis excels at speed and reliability. Tools like Qodana can scan an entire codebase in seconds, flagging potential bugs, performance issues, security vulnerabilities, and style violations, all before code is merged.
Automation also ensures that every change is evaluated against the same rules, every time. There’s no risk of a reviewer missing an error because they’re tired or distracted. For security-conscious projects, static analysis can run checks against OWASP recommendations or licensing requirements automatically.
And because Qodana integrates seamlessly with CI/CD servers like TeamCity, these scans can become a natural part of the build process, blocking poor-quality code before it ever reaches production.
