It's hard to decide as it's pretty personal. Many companies have slightly different standards. But I would say
the process itself: how many people in the team do one review, pre/post commit review
way of discussion - written / spoken. Longer elaboration (eg. "this code should be extracted to separate method XYZ and the duplicated piece from ABC should also be replaced) or short (eg. "duplication") hints
best tools, except the obvious choice of GH/GL/BB pull requests
things you should check or you should ignore ( code styling if some kind of static analysis bound to repo)
argues solving
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
That's true. I'd like to write a post about code reviews. What would you like it to include?
It's hard to decide as it's pretty personal. Many companies have slightly different standards. But I would say