The Art of Code Review in Cross-Functional Teams

Code reviews are challenging enough when everyone on your team speaks the same technical language. But what happens when your reviewers include data scientists who think in Python notebooks, product managers who care more about user outcomes than code elegance, and stakeholders who just want to know if the feature works?

Over the past few years working in ML-adjacent roles, I've learned that effective code review in cross-functional teams requires a fundamentally different approach. It's not just about catching bugs or enforcing style guides—it's about building shared understanding across disciplines.

The Challenge of Mixed Audiences

Traditional code reviews assume a shared context that often doesn't exist in cross-functional teams:

• Data scientists may be brilliant at statistics but unfamiliar with production engineering practices
• Product managers understand user needs but may not grasp the technical implications of implementation choices
• Domain experts know the business logic inside and out but may not understand why certain code patterns matter

The result? Reviews that either exclude non-engineers entirely or get bogged down in technical details that don't serve the broader team's needs.

A Multi-Layered Review Strategy

I've found success with a layered approach that provides different levels of detail for different audiences:

Layer 1: The Executive Summary

Start every PR with a clear, jargon-free summary that answers:

• What problem does this solve?
• What's the expected impact?
• Are there any risks or trade-offs?

This section should be understandable to anyone on your team, regardless of technical background.

Layer 2: The Implementation Overview

For reviewers with some technical background, provide a high-level explanation of your approach:

• What's the overall architecture?
• Why did you choose this approach over alternatives?
• How does this fit into the existing system?

Layer 3: The Technical Deep Dive

Finally, for your engineering reviewers, include the technical details they need:

• Specific implementation choices and rationale
• Performance considerations
• Testing strategy
• Deployment considerations

Making Reviews Educational

One of the biggest opportunities in cross-functional code review is education. When done well, reviews become a way to share knowledge across disciplines.

For Data Scientists

When reviewing code from data scientists, I focus on:

• Production readiness: "This works great in a notebook—here's how we can make it robust in production"
• Error handling: "What happens if the input data is malformed?"
• Performance: "This approach works for our current data size—let's think about what happens as we scale"

For Product Stakeholders

When product managers are involved in reviews, I make sure to highlight:

• User impact: "This change will reduce page load time by 200ms"
• Feature completeness: "This implements the core functionality—here's what's still needed for the full feature"
• Risk assessment: "This is a low-risk change that can be rolled back easily"

Tools and Processes That Help

The right tools can make cross-functional reviews much more effective:

PR Templates

Create pull request templates that prompt for the information different audiences need. Include sections for business context, technical approach, and testing strategy.

Visual Aids

Screenshots, diagrams, and before/after comparisons can communicate changes more effectively than code diffs alone. This is especially valuable for UI changes or architectural modifications.

Staged Reviews

For complex changes, consider a two-stage review process: first a design review with the broader team, then a detailed code review with engineers.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

• Over-explaining: Don't assume non-engineers need every technical detail explained
• Under-explaining: Don't assume everyone understands the business context
• Excluding stakeholders: If someone cares about the outcome, they should have a way to understand the change
• Making it about ego: Focus on shared understanding, not demonstrating technical superiority

The Payoff

When done well, cross-functional code reviews create several benefits:

• Better products: More perspectives lead to better solutions
• Shared ownership: When everyone understands the code, everyone can contribute to its success
• Knowledge transfer: Team members learn from each other across disciplines
• Reduced silos: Regular collaboration breaks down barriers between teams

The extra effort required to make reviews accessible to non-engineers pays dividends in team cohesion and product quality.

What's your experience with cross-functional code reviews? I'd love to hear about strategies that have worked (or haven't worked) for your team. Reach out at matt@emmons.club.