Pull Request Process

The pull request process governs how code changes enter design systems through structured review and approval. An effective pull request process maintains quality while enabling efficient contribution from internal teams and external contributors.

What Is the Pull Request Process

The pull request process encompasses the steps from code submission through merge, including automated validation, human review, revision cycles, and final approval. This process serves as the gateway for all code entering the design system, ensuring changes meet quality standards before reaching consumers.

Pull request processes balance thoroughness with efficiency. Overly rigorous processes discourage contribution and slow system evolution. Insufficient processes allow quality problems to reach consumers. Effective processes apply appropriate rigor based on change scope and risk.

How Pull Request Processes Work

Submission requirements ensure pull requests contain necessary information. Templates prompt for change descriptions, testing evidence, documentation updates, and related issues. Complete submissions enable efficient review; incomplete submissions require back-and-forth that delays progress.

Automated validation runs before human review begins. Tests verify functional correctness. Linters enforce coding standards. Build processes confirm compilation success. Automated accessibility checks catch common issues. Validation failures block review until resolved.

Human review evaluates aspects automation cannot assess. Reviewers assess architectural decisions, code clarity, maintainability, and alignment with system patterns. Design review evaluates visual and interaction quality. Multiple reviewers may address different concerns.

Revision cycles address reviewer feedback. Contributors update their submissions based on review comments. Additional review validates revisions. This cycle continues until reviewers approve the changes.

Approval and merge complete the process. Required approvals vary by organization and change type. Merge strategies affect history cleanliness. Post-merge automation may trigger documentation updates or release processes.

Key Considerations

• Required reviewers should have relevant expertise for the changes being reviewed
• Review timelines should be tracked and managed to prevent contribution stall
• Automated checks should run quickly to enable rapid iteration
• Clear approval criteria prevent ambiguity about when merges can proceed
• Protected branches prevent direct pushes that bypass review

Common Questions

How many reviewers should pull requests require?

Reviewer count depends on change scope and organizational risk tolerance. Minor changes may require single approval. Significant changes benefit from multiple perspectives. Some organizations require both design and engineering approval for component changes. Balance thoroughness against the delay additional reviewers create.

How should organizations handle review bottlenecks?

Review bottlenecks indicate insufficient reviewer capacity or inefficient processes. Solutions include expanding the reviewer pool, establishing review time expectations, reducing unnecessary review scope through better automation, and tracking review metrics to identify systemic issues. Persistent bottlenecks discourage contribution and slow system evolution.

What makes good pull request feedback?

Good feedback is specific, actionable, and respectful. It identifies concrete issues rather than vague concerns. It explains why something matters, not just what should change. It distinguishes between required changes and suggestions. Constructive tone encourages contributor engagement while maintaining quality standards.

Summary

Pull request processes gate code entry to design systems through structured review and approval. Success requires balancing rigor with efficiency, clear requirements, and responsive review. Organizations should invest in processes that maintain quality while enabling productive contribution.