Code Review Design System

Code review for design systems addresses unique concerns beyond typical application code review. Code review design system practices must evaluate component quality, API consistency, accessibility compliance, and alignment with system patterns alongside standard code quality considerations.

What Is Code Review for Design Systems

Code review for design systems is the practice of evaluating code contributions against design system-specific criteria. Beyond correctness and code quality, reviewers assess whether contributions maintain system consistency, follow established patterns, meet accessibility requirements, and provide appropriate flexibility for consumers.

Design system code review requires specialized knowledge. Reviewers must understand component API conventions, token usage patterns, accessibility requirements, and documentation standards. This expertise enables review that catches design system-specific issues that general code review would miss.

How Code Review Works in Design Systems

Component evaluation assesses whether new or modified components fit within the system. Reviewers evaluate API design for consistency with existing components. They check that components use tokens rather than hardcoded values. They verify components follow established patterns for state management, composition, and customization.

Accessibility review ensures components meet compliance requirements. Reviewers verify semantic HTML usage, ARIA attribute correctness, keyboard interaction support, and screen reader compatibility. Accessibility review often requires specialized expertise distinct from general engineering knowledge.

Documentation review confirms adequate guidance accompanies code changes. Reviewers check that props documentation is complete, usage examples are accurate, and behavior descriptions match implementation. Documentation review prevents the documentation drift that undermines consumer success.

Breaking change evaluation identifies modifications that could impact existing consumers. Reviewers assess whether changes maintain backward compatibility or require deprecation and migration support. This evaluation prevents unexpected breakage when consumers update.

Key Considerations

• Reviewer expertise should match the concerns being evaluated
• Checklists help ensure consistent coverage of design system-specific criteria
• Automated checks should handle verification that does not require human judgment
• Review standards should be documented for transparency and training
• Review feedback should educate contributors, not just flag issues

Common Questions

Who should review design system code?

Design system code benefits from reviewers with different expertise areas. Engineers assess implementation quality and technical patterns. Designers evaluate visual consistency and interaction design. Accessibility specialists verify compliance requirements. The review team composition should ensure coverage of all relevant concerns.

How do code reviews maintain consistency?

Code reviews maintain consistency by comparing contributions against established patterns. Reviewers check that new code follows conventions used elsewhere in the system. Style guides, pattern documentation, and reference implementations provide standards against which reviewers evaluate contributions. Consistent review criteria across reviewers ensures reliable outcomes.

What should automated checks handle versus human review?

Automated checks should handle objective verification: test passage, linting compliance, build success, and measurable accessibility criteria. Human review should address subjective evaluation: API design quality, architectural decisions, documentation clarity, and pattern alignment. This division maximizes efficiency while ensuring thorough evaluation.

Summary

Code review for design systems requires attention to component quality, consistency, and accessibility beyond standard code review concerns. Success depends on reviewer expertise, clear standards, and appropriate use of automation. Organizations should invest in design system-specific review practices that maintain quality while enabling contribution.