Code Review Practice

Review peer pull requests and learn what maintainers expect from contributors.

intermediate5 days

Public lesson — sign in to track progress on this roadmap.

Learning objectives

Review diffs for correctness, tests, and clarity
Leave actionable comments without noise
Understand ACK culture and CI expectations

study // plan

Lessons are primers. Start with Step 1 (required reading) when present, then follow the numbered steps in the article. Depth comes from primary sources, labs, reflection, and evidence.

Research on Bitcoin Search

code review practice ACK NACK diff review

Step 1 // Required reading

Complete these before the numbered steps in the lesson body. Links are listed here once — not repeated below.

docsBitcoin Core CONTRIBUTING
articleConventional comments

Reflection prompts

Explain Code Review Practice to a teammate without jargon - what problem does it solve?
What would break in production if you misunderstood Code Review Practice?
Which BIP, book chapter, or Core doc is authoritative here, and what did you verify?

Lab // Written review notes

Complete Steps 2–3. Review one open PR (Review Club or Bitcoin-track /issues). Leave or draft actionable comments covering correctness, tests, and clarity.

evidence required

PR URL reviewed
Written review notes (or link to your GitHub comments)
One sentence on whether you would ACK, NACK, or request changes — and why

Reviewing is how Bitcoin stays safe. You will learn more from careful review than from rushing another feature PR.

Complete Step 1 // Required reading in the study plan above, then continue here.

Step 2 — Context: what maintainers expect

Use Pull’s Review Club picks on this lesson, or browse open issues filtered for Bitcoin tracks.

What to check:

Does it solve the claimed problem?
Are there tests?
Are edge cases handled?
Is the diff minimal?

Loading diagram…

Description → diff → tests → informed ACK or change request.

Done when: You can explain why silence is not an ACK.

Step 3 — Practice: review one PR (lab)

Read the description, inspect the diff, run or reason about tests if feasible. Draft comments using conventional-comment prefixes where helpful (nit:, suggestion:, issue:).

Checklist

Comments are actionable (what + why)
You checked tests / verification claims
You stated ACK / NACK / request-changes clearly

Done when: Lab evidence (PR URL + notes + verdict sentence) is complete.

Next lesson

Contribution Rubric — score your own attempt before asking for review.

Review club

Practice on real Bitcoin OSS changes tied to this chapter. Read the diff, use the checklist, and optionally paste your review comment URL in your lab notes.

Recent Bitcoin Core PR for review practice
Pick a small open Core PR and leave a conventional comment on one concrete improvement.
pr review
correctnesstestsscope
45 min·intermediateopen on GitHub

review checklist

Does the change solve the stated problem?
Are edge cases and rollout behavior covered?
Are tests or test vectors included?
Is the diff minimal and clearly explained?

More repos and GFIs on /discover and /issues.

progress // sign in

Reading is public. Sign in to mark lessons complete, sync across devices, and unlock your roadmap.

./sign-in-to-track

prevFinding Good First Issues nextContribution Rubric

Step 2 — Context: what maintainers expect

Use Pull’s Review Club picks on this lesson, or browse open issues filtered for Bitcoin tracks.

What to check:

Does it solve the claimed problem?

Are there tests?

Are edge cases handled?

Is the diff minimal?

Loading diagram…

Description → diff → tests → informed ACK or change request.

Done when: You can explain why silence is not an ACK.

Step 3 — Practice: review one PR (lab)

Read the description, inspect the diff, run or reason about tests if feasible. Draft comments using conventional-comment prefixes where helpful (nit:, suggestion:, issue:).

Comments are actionable (what + why)

You checked tests / verification claims

You stated ACK / NACK / request-changes clearly

Done when: Lab evidence (PR URL + notes + verdict sentence) is complete.

Contribution Rubric — score your own attempt before asking for review.

Code Review Practice

Learning objectives

Step 1 // Required reading

Reflection prompts

Lab // Written review notes

How to study this lesson

Step 2 — Context: what maintainers expect

Step 3 — Practice: review one PR (lab)

Checklist

Next lesson

further reading

Review club

Code Review Practice

Learning objectives

Step 1 // Required reading

Reflection prompts

Lab // Written review notes

How to study this lesson

Step 2 — Context: what maintainers expect

Step 3 — Practice: review one PR (lab)

Checklist

Next lesson

further reading

Review club