Skip to main content
Table of Contents

Managing Large Pull Requests to Reduce Review Friction and Risk

Learn why large pull requests slow teams down, increase risk, and how LinearB helps you detect, manage, and improve them using AI insights, team workflows, and automation.

Steven Silverstone
Updated by Steven Silverstone

Large pull requests (PRs) are one of the most consistent predictors of review delays, delivery friction, and production risk.

Research shows that once a PR exceeds 400–800 lines of code (LOC), the likelihood of introducing bugs or stalling reviews increases sharply. Small, focused PRs (under 100 LOC or five files) are easier to review, test, and merge safely. They also improve onboarding, iteration speed, and team alignment.

LinearB provides tools to measure, monitor, and manage PR size across your organization.

What qualifies as a “large” pull request?

Use the following benchmarks as guidance when defining PR size thresholds for your team.

Signal Why it matters “Small” “Large”
PR Size (net lines changed) Leading indicator for review time and change failure risk < 100 LOC — sweet spot > 400 LOC slows reviews; > 800 LOC = very high risk
Code Changes (cumulative diff) Reflects total work done, not just final state < 150 LOC > 500 LOC
Files Touched Reviewer cognitive load increases per file ≤ 5 files > 10 files — requires extra reviewer
Community benchmark 6M PR study: elite teams average < 105 changes per PR < 105 Above average risk
Track PR Size and Code Changes side-by-side in your Team Goals and Developer Metrics dashboards to measure improvement.
You can configure your own PR size thresholds under Team Goals → Pull Request Size and let WorkerB enforce them automatically.
What happens when large PRs reach AI Code Review?

AI Code Review does not block or reject pull requests. Instead, it highlights risk and provides visibility so teams can maintain velocity while staying in control.

When a large PR is opened, you may see:

  • Estimated Review Time (ETR) labels (for example, “20 min+” shown in red)
  • Increased findings, including bugs, security concerns, and performance risks
  • Automatic assignment of additional reviewers through gitStream when size and ETR thresholds are exceeded
Large PRs typically result in longer ETR labels, more AI findings, and additional reviewers. Treat these signals as an opportunity to break the work into smaller changes before final review.
Strategies for managing large pull requests

These practices protect both delivery speed and code quality.

  • Slice work early
    Aim for < 100 LOC and ≤ 5 files. Use feature slices and branches instead of batching large changes.
  • Use feature flags
    Wrap larger features in flags so you can merge incremental changes safely.
  • Pre-review with teammates
    Validate structure and approach early using Slack channels (for example, #pr-drafts) or pair programming.
  • Assign multiple reviewers automatically
    Large or sensitive PRs benefit from additional reviewers. Use additional_review_for_large_pr in gitStream to enforce this automatically with minimal configuration.
  • Let WorkerB enforce standards
    Enable Pull Request Size alerts so authors are notified immediately when their diff exceeds team thresholds.
How LinearB helps
Problem LinearB feature
Oversized PRs are hard to detect Team Goals → PR Size threshold + WorkerB alerts
Long review cycles for large PRs ETR labels + gitStream auto-reviewer rules
Hidden risk in large diffs AI Code Review surfaces bugs, performance, and security issues
Hard to measure improvement Developer Metrics → PR Size vs. Review Time trends
Elite teams average fewer than 105 code changes per PR. Once PRs exceed 400–800 LOC, risk increases significantly.
Copy/paste checklist for team repositories
  • Target PR size: < 100 net LOC or ≤ 5 files
  • Use feature flags for larger features
  • Pre-review in Slack or via pair programming
  • Use gitStream rules to enforce reviewer coverage
  • Enable WorkerB alerts for oversized PRs
Related links

How did we do?

How to Address High Risk Work

Preventing Pull Requests from Being Merged Without Proper Review

Contact