Code reviews are essential.

Review meetings are not.

Many engineering teams still rely on synchronous communication to explain pull requests, discuss implementation details, and answer reviewer questions.

The result is familiar:

• More meetings
• More interruptions
• Longer review cycles
• Less time for focused work

Async pull request reviews offer a different approach. Many engineering teams now support these workflows using AI pull request walkthroughs that provide reviewers with context before the review begins.

Instead of requiring reviewers and authors to be available at the same time, teams provide the context reviewers need upfront and allow feedback to happen asynchronously.

For modern distributed engineering teams, this approach is becoming increasingly important.

1. What Is an Async Pull Request Review?

An async pull request review is a code review process that does not require real-time communication.

Instead of scheduling meetings or live walkthroughs, engineers provide context through:

• Pull request descriptions
• Review comments
• Documentation
• Recorded walkthroughs
• AI-generated explanations

Reviewers can consume the information and provide feedback when it fits their schedule.

The review still happens.

The meeting doesn't.

2. Why Traditional Review Workflows Create Bottlenecks

Many pull request reviews start with good intentions.

An engineer opens a pull request and a reviewer begins reviewing it.

Then the questions start.

• Why was this approach chosen?
• What changed for users?
• Which files matter most?
• What should I focus on?

The reviewer schedules a call.

The engineer explains the changes.

The review finally begins.

This workflow creates unnecessary delays because context is delivered only when both people are available.

The larger the team becomes, the more expensive this process gets.

3. The Cost of Synchronous Reviews

Meetings feel efficient because information is exchanged quickly.

But they also create hidden costs.

Context Switching

Every review meeting interrupts focused work.

Developers lose momentum and require time to regain concentration afterward.

Scheduling Delays

Reviews often wait for calendars rather than technical readiness.

Knowledge Silos

Only meeting participants receive the explanation.

Future team members cannot easily access the context.

Review Bottlenecks

Senior engineers become a dependency for every explanation.

These costs compound as teams scale.

4. Why Async Reviews Are Becoming More Important

Engineering teams are shipping more code than ever before.

AI-assisted development is accelerating output across the industry.

According to Jellyfish, organizations that fully adopt AI coding tools experience a 113% increase in pull request throughput while pull requests become 18.2% larger on average.

More pull requests require more reviews.

But reviewer capacity does not increase at the same rate.

Teams need more scalable review workflows.

Async reviews provide exactly that.

5. Benefits of Async Pull Request Reviews

Faster Review Cycles

Reviewers can start immediately instead of waiting for meetings.

Research from Graphite suggests AI-assisted review workflows can reduce review cycle times by up to 40%.

The biggest improvement often comes from reducing waiting rather than reducing review effort.

Fewer Interruptions

Developers maintain longer periods of focused work.

Review discussions happen when participants are ready rather than when calendars align.

Better Documentation

Async communication creates records that remain available after the review is complete.

Future engineers can understand:

• Why decisions were made
• How features evolved
• What tradeoffs were considered

This turns reviews into reusable knowledge. Many organizations go a step further and turn pull requests into video documentation that can be reused for onboarding and knowledge sharing.

Improved Cross-Functional Collaboration

Product Managers, Designers, and QA teams rarely attend code review meetings.

Async workflows make it easier for Product stakeholders to stay involved throughout implementation. Learn how Product Managers can review pull requests without reading code.

6. The Missing Piece: Context

Many teams attempt async reviews but struggle because reviewers still lack context.

The problem isn't asynchronous communication.

The problem is incomplete communication.

A reviewer who receives only a code diff still needs to reconstruct the story behind the change.

This creates unnecessary review friction.

Successful async reviews provide context before the review begins. While many teams attempt to solve this using written descriptions, walkthroughs often provide richer context. See our comparison of pull request walkthroughs vs PR descriptions.

7. Why Pull Request Walkthroughs Work So Well

Pull request walkthroughs solve the context problem. If you're unfamiliar with the concept, here's a guide explaining what a pull request walkthrough is and why teams use them.

Instead of forcing reviewers to infer intent, the author explains:

• What changed
• Why it changed
• What reviewers should focus on
• What business problem is being solved

Reviewers start with understanding rather than uncertainty.

8. AI Makes Async Reviews Scalable

Historically, walkthroughs required engineers to manually record explanations.

This was effective but difficult to scale.

Today, AI agents can:

• Read pull requests
• Understand code changes
• Generate explanations
• Create walkthrough videos
• Share them automatically

The result is a review process that provides rich context without creating additional work for engineers.

For a complete overview, see AI Pull Request Walkthroughs: The Complete Guide.

9. Example Async Review Workflow

A modern async review workflow might look like this:

1. Engineer opens a pull request.
2. AI generates a walkthrough video explaining the changes.
3. The walkthrough is posted directly into GitHub.
4. Product stakeholders review the feature implementation.
5. Engineers review technical details.
6. Feedback is shared asynchronously through comments.

No meeting required.

No context lost.

No scheduling delays.

10. Best Practices for Async Pull Request Reviews

Provide Context Early

The earlier reviewers understand intent, the faster reviews move.

Focus on Outcomes

Explain business impact before implementation details.

Use Video for Complex Changes

Visual explanations are often easier to consume than text.

Keep Communication Searchable

Documentation should remain accessible after the review is complete.

Avoid Replacing Discussion Entirely

Not every conversation should be asynchronous.

Complex architectural discussions may still benefit from real-time collaboration.

Conclusion

Async pull request reviews are not about eliminating communication.

They're about making communication more scalable.

By reducing interruptions, minimizing scheduling delays, and providing context upfront, engineering teams can review code faster without sacrificing quality.

As development velocity continues to increase, the teams that adopt async review workflows will be better positioned to scale collaboration without scaling meetings.

Pull request walkthroughs and AI-generated explanations are becoming an important part of that transition.

Sources

1. Jellyfish – AI-Assisted Pull Requests Are 18% Larger
2. Graphite – The ROI of AI-Assisted Code Review