Code Review Workflow · GitLab Feature Trail

Aug 2026Secure every commit to production with Claude and GitLabThis post details the integration of Anthropic's Claude AI security guidance plugin with GitLab to enhance the security of the commit-to-production workflow. It introduces a five-step workflow that leverages Claude for in-session code authoring and vulnerability flagging, and GitLab for enforcing controls, providing audit evidence, managing sensitive data, and ensuring comprehensive scanning coverage across the development lifecycle. Key GitLab features highlighted include Security Configuration Profiles, Merge Request Approval Policies, Vulnerability Reports, Security Dashboards, Compliance Controls, Pipeline Logs, Audit Events, Context Exclusions for AI data, Prompt Guardrails, and various security scanning tools (Dependency, Container, IaC, Secret, DAST). The post emphasizes that GitLab provides the guardrails for both human developers and AI agents to ensure secure code delivery.

May 2026Transform MRs from manual tasks to an automated workflowIntroduces significant enhancements to GitLab's Developer Flow, extending its automation capabilities across the entire MR lifecycle. Key new features include an AI agent that can address reviewer feedback, resolve merge conflicts autonomously ('Resolve with Duo'), research codebases, split large MRs, and implement features. It also adds a one-click rebase and merge functionality. The underlying architecture is now a single agentic loop with a full developer toolset, leveraging project setup files for context.

Mar 2026Agentic code reviews for $0.25 eachIntroduces 'Code Review Flow', an agentic AI capability within the GitLab Duo Agent Platform, offering automated code reviews for a flat rate of $0.25 per review. This feature scans changes, explores repository context, checks against pipelines, security findings, and compliance requirements, generating structured inline feedback. It aims to unblock review queues and provide consistent standards at scale by enabling automatic triggering on every merge request and allowing custom instructions per project. The post also details the consumption of GitLab Credits for this feature and provides instructions on how to get started.

Jun 2025Accelerate code reviews with GitLab Duo and Amazon QThis post introduces GitLab Duo with Amazon Q, an agentic AI solution that performs comprehensive code reviews. It details the trigger command '/q review' and the process by which Amazon Q Service analyzes code changes, providing feedback on bug detection, readability, syntax errors, and coding standards. The post highlights the benefits of faster reviews, consistent standards, immediate feedback, and reduced deployment times.

Dec 2024Transform code quality and compliance with automated processesThis post emphasizes the importance of automated code quality and compliance systems to overcome the bottlenecks of manual code review processes. It highlights GitLab Premium features such as Multiple Approvers for Merge Requests, Code Quality checks, and Protected Branches as key enablers for faster, more secure software delivery. The post also details how enhanced compliance controls, including advanced compliance features and audit logs, provide greater accountability and auditability throughout the development process. The example of Airbus Intelligence is used to illustrate the benefits of these features in reducing release times and improving code quality through automated security testing and CI.

Sep 2023Unblock code reviews with GitLab Suggested ReviewersIntroduces GitLab Suggested Reviewers, a feature leveraging a machine learning algorithm to analyze MR changes and project contribution graphs to suggest up to five reviewers. It highlights benefits like time savings, enhanced collaboration, improved code quality, and reduced bottlenecks. The post explains that additional commits to MRs automatically update suggestions and that the UI displays if a suggestion is a code owner or can merge changes.

Sep 2022Pursuing faster time-to-merge for wider community contributionsIntroduced workflow labels (`workflow::ready for review`, `workflow::in dev`, `workflow::blocked`) to manage the state of merge requests, allowing community contributors to self-manage their MRs. This resulted in a reduction of the median time an MR spends in the 'ready for review' state from 17 days to 5 days, and a drop in the median Open Community MR Age (OCMA) from 139 days to 78 days. Explored automation for label management and introduced the 'Leading Organizations' program with a four-business-day review time objective.

Jun 2022GitLab transforms code review with machine learning toolsThis post details the integration of UnReview's machine learning capabilities into GitLab's code review process, specifically focusing on the development of 'Suggested Reviewers'. It highlights the acquisition of UnReview for its MLOps and DataOps expertise, the three initial objectives (eliminating manual reviewer search, optimizing load and knowledge sharing, and providing analytics), and the learnings from beta customers regarding reviewer context, recency, and bias. The post also discusses the technical challenges of introducing Python and MLOps pipelines into GitLab's stack, and outlines future plans for Intelligent Code Security and automated vulnerability remediation.

Jan 2022The road to smarter code reviewer recommendationsThis post announces the acquisition of UnReview and its integration as the first AI-assisted feature for suggested reviewers within GitLab's existing reviewer experience. It introduces the new 'ModelOps' stage focused on enabling data science workloads and AI/ML models on GitLab. The UnReview algorithm leverages project contribution history to suggest reviewers. A customer beta is announced for early 2022.

Sep 2021How GitLab's 5 new code review features will make life easierThis post introduces five new features that enhance the code review workflow within GitLab's DevOps Platform: 1) Integration with VS Code and Gitpod to view and interact with merge requests directly within development environments. 2) Display of code quality notices inline with the merge request diff. 3) Ability to toggle between viewing all changed files and a single file at a time in merge requests. 4) Functionality to mark files as reviewed within a merge request. 5) Addition of 'reviewers' as a distinct role in merge requests, alongside 'assignees'.

Sep 2021The code review struggle is real. Here's what you need to knowThis post highlights the challenges and importance of code review, citing survey data on its impact on release delays and code quality. It discusses common pain points such as lack of reviewers, perceived chore, and lengthy response times. It also mentions strategies for improvement like smaller merge requests, automated pipelines, and shifting security left, and notes that developers wish they could do more code reviews. It sets the stage for a future post detailing how GitLab's platform makes code reviews easier.

Aug 20215 Great Phabricator features that inspired GitLabThis post details how Phabricator's "diff tasks" inspired GitLab's Merge Requests (MRs), particularly the concept of a "Draft" state (now "Draft MRs") and the practice of linking commits to MRs for improved debugging history. It also highlights the evolution of code coverage reporting in MRs, from parsing job output to inline remarks, and draws parallels between Phabricator's Herald and Harbormaster with GitLab CI/CD and webhooks. Finally, it notes the inspiration Phabricator's work boards provided for GitLab's issue and epic boards.

Mar 2021Why small merge requests are key to a great reviewThis post introduces and advocates for the practice of creating small merge requests (MRs) as a key to improving the code review process. It explains that iteration, defined as doing the smallest thing possible, is a core GitLab value that applies to MRs. The post details the technical and practical benefits of small MRs, such as reduced complexity for reviewers, fewer merge conflicts, and easier identification of bugs. It also mentions the existence of DangerBot, a tool that enforces MR size limits, and discusses best practices for follow-up reviews.

Mar 2021How patch files can transform how you review codeThis post introduces the use of patch files as a method for code reviewers to provide actionable suggestions within merge requests. It details how to create and apply patch files using the command line (`git format-patch`, `git apply --check`, `git am --signoff`) and mentions IDE support. The benefits of using patch files for code reviews are highlighted, emphasizing collaboration, effort demonstration, and reviewer responsibility. It also contrasts patch files with GitLab's suggestion feature and raw markdown comments, advocating for patch files due to their testability and collaborative nature. The post notes that GitLab is evaluating the integration of patch files into the code review workflow.

Mar 2021How to write a more thoughtful code reviewThis post introduces communication strategies for code reviews, focusing on the author's responsibility for self-reviews and the reviewer's role in providing constructive feedback. It highlights the 'conventional comments' system as a method to add context and tone to feedback (e.g., 'suggestion (non-blocking)'), differentiating between blocking and non-blocking changes. The post also emphasizes fairness in code reviews, providing 'Dos and Don'ts' for both authors and reviewers, and cautioning against 'should/must' statements that may stem from personal bias rather than objective requirements.

Jan 2021How to do GitLab merge request reviews in VS CodeThis post details the integration of the GitLab VS Code extension to bring merge request review functionality directly into the editor. It describes how the extension displays MR changes and discussions within VS Code, enabling users to review code and comments without context switching. It also outlines future plans to enable full commenting and review capabilities, including editing existing comments, adding emoji reactions, resolving threads, and creating new comments and reviews.

Oct 2020Code review made easier thanks to merge request reviewers in GitLab 13.7Introduced a dedicated 'reviewers' field in merge requests to allow authors to formally request reviews from specific users and track their status. This addresses issues with using the 'assignee' field for multiple roles, improves clarity on review progress, and facilitates peer collaboration. The feature is available on GitLab Premium and Ultimate.

Sep 2020How to carry out effective code reviewsThis post details practical tips for efficient code reviews, focusing on time management, prioritizing unblocking others, focusing on code over features (deferring feature-specific reviews to UX/PM), and the importance of asking questions to foster understanding. It emphasizes the 2-day SLO for feedback and the author's personal goal of responding within a day. The post also touches on identifying technical debt and the iterative nature of improving code review workflows.

Jul 2020The challenges of code reviewsThis post highlights the challenges and importance of code reviews based on survey data, emphasizing the need for better processes and buy-in. It discusses common pain points such as reviewer availability, time zone differences, and disorganization. While it doesn't introduce new technical features, it reinforces the value of code reviews and points to existing GitLab resources for improving the process.

Jun 2020Better Code Reviews GitLab StyleThis post details best practices for code reviews at GitLab, focusing on self-reviews with a checklist for MR authors, the use of conventional comments to improve communication and intent, and the practical application of Git patch files for collaborative code changes. It highlights how these practices contribute to a better feedback cycle and teamwork.

Mar 2020Troubleshoot delays with our Code Review Analytics toolThis post introduces Value Stream Analytics (formerly Cycle Analytics) to measure development cycle velocity from planning to monitoring, tracking seven stages: Issue, Plan, Code, Test, Review, Staging, and Total. It also introduces Code Review Analytics (since GitLab 12.7) to provide deeper insights into slow-moving merge requests, displaying a dashboard of open merge requests with non-author comments, measuring review time from the first non-author comment, and showing summary statistics like comments, commits, and approvers. The post details how to debug issues like complex code, author training needs, or understaffing based on the Code Review Analytics dashboard.

Dec 2019The future of merge requests: Real-time collaborationThis post introduces the concept of real-time collaboration within merge requests, inspired by collaborative document editing tools like Google Docs. It proposes features such as presence indicators (avatars showing who is viewing the MR), real-time commenting and co-authoring, and the ability to initiate synchronous communication (e.g., video calls) directly from the merge request interface. The goal is to significantly decrease cycle time, increase code review efficiency, and create better ways of collaborating.

Oct 2019Reviewer Roulette: (Just about) one year onThis post details the evolution of GitLab's 'Reviewer Roulette' tool. Initially a Slack-based tool, it was inconsistently used due to workflow friction. The tool was re-implemented within the CI pipeline using Danger bot, integrating reviewer suggestions directly into merge requests. This change removed barriers to usage, improved availability, and made the tool more accessible for internal development. Future work aims to extend this functionality to community contributors and satellite projects, potentially by leveraging the CODEOWNERS file.

Feb 2018How eslint-plugin-vue improved our code reviewsThis post details the integration of eslint-plugin-vue into the GitLab codebase to enforce consistent Vue code style. It describes the initial lack of linting tools when Vue was first added, the development of an internal style guide, and the subsequent adoption of the official eslint-plugin-vue once it reached version 4.0.0. The post highlights the effort involved in fixing linting conflicts and the resulting improvement in code review speed and consistency.

Jul 2017Why your code review process is broken, and how to fix itThis post discusses the common reasons for ineffective code review processes, such as rushed deadlines, power dynamics between junior and senior developers, and a lack of alignment between business and engineering teams. It highlights the importance of empathy, respect, and clear communication in code reviews, referencing best practices from the thoughtbot code review guide. The post also touches on the impact of technical debt and burnout on code quality and the review process.

Jun 2017Workflow tips to ship faster without sacrificing security or qualityThis post introduces the concept of making smaller changes and committing often to improve the efficiency of code reviews and security checks. It also highlights the importance of involving security experts and reviewers early in the development process and integrating code into staging or test environments sooner. Additionally, it suggests leveraging the community through bug bounty programs to identify and prioritize security issues and bugs.

May 2017Inside GitLab’s code review flowThis post details GitLab's existing code review process, emphasizing the collaborative nature involving product managers, designers, and software engineers. It highlights the use of GitLab issues and merge requests for discussions, the 'Conversational Development' approach where reviews are integrated throughout the development lifecycle, and the benefits of shared responsibility and knowledge sharing. It contrasts with the later evolution of automated reviewer suggestions.

Mar 2017Demo: Mastering code review with GitLabThis post details the typical code review flow at GitLab, which involves a developer making a change, creating a merge request, assigning it to a reviewer, addressing comments, and then assigning to a final reviewer for merging. It emphasizes the importance of rigorous review for code quality and mentions the goal of enhancing the review process to improve speed and quality of code delivery.

Jul 2015Feature Highlight: Merge Request ApprovalsIntroduced Merge Request Approvals to enforce a minimum number of required approvals before merging. Allows configuration of the number of required approvals and assignment of specific approvers. Supports combining specific and non-specific approvers. Allows setting default approvers in project settings. Introduced an option to automatically reset approvals after a new push to the merge request.

Jun 2015Feature Highlight: Approve Merge RequestIntroduced Merge Request Approvals in GitLab Enterprise Edition 7.12. This feature allows administrators to configure a required number of approvals from different users for a merge request before it can be merged via the UI. This enforces a multi-reviewer workflow.

What this trail covers