Three Practices That Make GitHub Code Reviews Faster and More Reliable
Which THREE practices improve the efficiency of code review processes in GitHub?
Quick Answer
Keeping pull requests small and focused, requiring status checks to pass before merge, and enforcing required reviewers are the three practices that consistently speed up GitHub code review — small PRs are faster to reason about, automated checks catch obvious issues before a human ever looks, and required reviewers keep quality gates from being skipped.
⚠ Common exam trap
Many candidates confuse 'efficiency' with 'speed' and choose Option A (direct pushes) to bypass review, but the question asks for practices that improve efficiency of the review process itself, not shortcuts that undermine it.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Enable required status checks to pass before merging.
Enabling required status checks ensures that automated tests, builds, or other validation steps must pass before a pull request can be merged. This enforces quality gates directly in the branch protection rules, preventing broken code from being merged and reducing manual review overhead.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Allow direct pushes to main for urgent fixes.
Why it's wrong here
Direct pushes bypass review.
- ✓
Enable required status checks to pass before merging.
Why this is correct
Automated checks reduce manual review burden.
- ✓
Use pull request templates with checklists.
Why this is correct
Templates ensure necessary information.
- ✗
Require at least 5 reviewers for every PR.
Why it's wrong here
Too many reviewers cause delays.
- ✓
Keep pull requests small and focused.
Why this is correct
Small PRs are easier to review.
Go deeper
Related to this question
Learn chapter
Managing Build Quality and Package Dependencies
Key term
Pull request
A pull request is a way for a developer to propose changes to a codebase and ask other team members to review and merge them into the main project.
Key term
Code review
A code review is a systematic examination of source code by one or more developers to find defects, improve quality, and enforce coding standards before it is merged into the main codebase.
About these practice questions
This AZ-400 question is part of Courseiva's 823-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
Same concept, more angles
2 more ways this is tested on AZ-400
These questions test the same concept from different angles. Work through them to make sure you can recognise it however the exam phrases it.
Variation 1. Which THREE practices are recommended for effective source control in a GitHub monorepo? (Choose three.)
medium- A.Store large binary files directly in the repository
- ✓ B.Use branch protection rules to enforce CI checks
- C.Use a single build definition for all projects
- ✓ D.Use code owners to automatically request reviewers
- ✓ E.Use path filters to trigger only relevant CI workflows
Why B: Branch protection rules (B) enforce required status checks like CI builds and tests before merging, maintaining stability in a monorepo with many contributors. Code owners (D) automatically request reviewers from the responsible teams for changes in their respective paths, ensuring proper review and accountability. Path filters (E) trigger only the CI workflows relevant to the changed code, avoiding unnecessary builds and reducing feedback loops. Storing large binaries in the repo (A) is poor practice, and a single build definition for all projects (C) is inefficient because it forces full builds on every change.
Variation 2. Your organization uses GitHub for source control. You need to implement a secure source control strategy that prevents secrets from being exposed and ensures code quality. Which THREE practices should you implement?
hard- ✓ A.Configure branch protection rules requiring status checks to pass
- B.Store secrets in a .env file committed to the repository
- C.Require commit signing using GPG keys
- ✓ D.Enable GitHub secret scanning for the repository
- ✓ E.Use pre-commit hooks to scan for secrets before commits
Why A: Branch protection rules enforce required status checks (e.g., CI builds, code reviews) before merging, ensuring only validated changes enter protected branches—this supports code quality. GitHub secret scanning automatically detects known types of secrets in repositories and alerts on exposure, directly preventing secret leaks. Pre-commit hooks scan code for secrets before a commit is created, blocking accidental commits of credentials or tokens. Together, A, D, and E address both secret prevention and code quality. Commit signing (C) verifies authorship but does not prevent secret exposure or enforce code quality checks.
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This AZ-400 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Microsoft certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the AZ-400 exam.