Code reviews are essential, but when they don't go smoothly-resulting in numerous comments or major changes-it signals issues in the SDLC. These issues often stem from incomplete requirements, unclear acceptance criteria, lack of grooming, poor design/architecture review, weak team or cross teams synchronization, tooling gaps (IDE setup, linting, automation), lack of examples, templates, best practices, or inconsistent standards. A good code review reveals how healthy the engineering processes are and highlights areas for improvement, such as tech talks or knowledge sharing and the all engineers awareness. For me as Sr. Principal Software Engineer, code reviews aren't just about checking the code and test coverage against AC; they reveal deeper gaps in how teams work. Recurring issues often require changes beyond the author and reviewer, addressing the root-root-root causes. For example, improving grooming sessions, standardizing tools, or aligning teams through knowledge transfers. My approach focuses on fixing these systemic issues to create smoother reviews and a healthier engineering process overall. There are much good info like Google's code review standards which can guide general practices, but on my level I focus more on why problems happen and fixing the foundation.