3.4 Review Types
Key Takeaways
- Review types range from informal reviews to highly formal inspections.
- Informal reviews are lightweight and mainly aimed at detecting anomalies quickly.
- Walkthroughs are usually led by the author and can educate participants or build consensus.
- Technical reviews use technically qualified reviewers and are often moderated.
- Inspections are the most formal review type and emphasize finding many anomalies and collecting metrics.
Choosing the Right Review Type
Review formality should fit the risk, work product, culture, regulation, and objective. A minor wording change in an internal wiki may need an informal review. A safety-critical interface specification may need an inspection with defined roles, metrics, and documented follow-up.
Informal reviews do not follow a defined process and do not require formal documented output. They are useful when speed and low overhead matter. Examples include pair checking a user story, a developer asking another developer to look over a small change, or a tester asking a product owner to confirm an acceptance criterion.
A walkthrough is commonly led by the author. The author presents the work product and guides participants through it. Walkthroughs can detect anomalies, but they can also educate reviewers, build shared understanding, gain consensus, generate ideas, and help the author improve. Individual preparation may happen, but it is not always required.
A technical review is performed by technically qualified reviewers and is usually led by a moderator. It is useful when the group needs to evaluate quality, make technical decisions, build confidence, and reach consensus. For example, architects and senior developers might review a service interface design before teams commit to implementation.
An inspection is the most formal common review type. It follows the full generic review process, uses defined roles, collects metrics, and aims to find the maximum number of anomalies. In inspections, the author should not act as the review leader or scribe because role separation helps objectivity and traceability.
| Review type | Typical formality | Strong signal in questions |
|---|---|---|
| Informal review | Low | No defined process or formal output |
| Walkthrough | Low to medium | Author leads participants through the product |
| Technical review | Medium | Technically qualified reviewers and consensus decisions |
| Inspection | High | Full process, metrics, maximum anomaly detection, role discipline |
Do not answer only by the work product. The same requirement can be reviewed informally early, walked through with users, technically reviewed for feasibility, and inspected if regulatory evidence is needed. The objective and context drive the review type.
The exam often uses words such as author-led, technically qualified, metrics, no documented output, audit trail, and maximum anomalies. Those words are stronger clues than the size of the document.
A team needs the most formal review type, with a full process, metrics, defined roles, and a main objective of finding as many anomalies as possible. Which review type fits best?
Which statements about review types are correct? Select all that apply.
Select all that apply