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.
Option B is correct because enabling required status checks (branch protection rules that block merging until CI checks pass) ensures automated tests, linting, and builds succeed before human review, reducing review cycles spent on broken or untested code. Option C is correct because pull request templates with checklists standardize what authors provide (e.g., description, testing steps, linked issues), so reviewers spend less time requesting missing context and more time on substantive feedback. Option E is correct because small, focused pull requests are easier and faster to review, produce more precise comments, and reduce merge conflicts and review fatigue, directly improving review efficiency. Option A is not appropriate because allowing direct pushes to main bypasses review entirely and undermines branch protection, increasing risk rather than improving the review process. Option D is not appropriate because requiring at least 5 reviewers for every PR creates bottlenecks, slows merge times, and adds redundant approvals without proportional quality gains.
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 pull-request review entirely, so no reviewer approval or status checks gate the change before it reaches main. It appeals because hotfixes need speed, and bypassing branch protection genuinely helps when a documented emergency break-glass path is authorised and audited.
- ✓
Enable required status checks to pass before merging.
Why this is correct
Required status checks gate merging on automated build, test, and validation results, so reviewers avoid manually verifying code that CI already proves sound. This reduces review cycles and prevents broken code entering protected branches, directly improving code review efficiency.
- ✓
Use pull request templates with checklists.
Why this is correct
Pull request templates with checklists enforce consistent, repeatable review criteria, so reviewers verify security, testing and documentation requirements without restating them each time. This directly reduces review cycle time and rework, satisfying the stem's efficiency constraint by standardising what must be checked before approval.
- ✗
Require at least 5 reviewers for every PR.
Why it's wrong here
Requiring five reviewers creates a bottleneck, slowing merges and diluting individual accountability without improving defect detection. It is tempting because more eyes appear to raise coverage, which is correct for high-risk changes such as security patches, where a small mandatory reviewer count plus CODEOWNERS suffices.
- ✓
Keep pull requests small and focused.
Why this is correct
Small, focused pull requests limit the diff to one logical change, letting reviewers hold the whole context in mind and spot defects quickly. Review latency and comment volume drop compared with large, multi-purpose PRs, improving overall review efficiency.
Go deeper
Related to this question
Learn chapter
Final Review and Exam Preparation
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 696-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: Option B is correct because branch protection rules on a monorepo's shared branches (e.g., main) can require status checks from CI workflows to pass before merging, preventing broken code from entering a repository that many teams depend on. Option D is correct because a CODEOWNERS file maps paths to owners and automatically requests the appropriate reviewers for pull requests, which is essential in a monorepo where different directories belong to different teams. Option E is correct because path filters (e.g., the paths: key in GitHub Actions workflow triggers) ensure that a change in one project only runs the CI workflows relevant to that path, avoiding unnecessary builds across the whole monorepo. Option A is not recommended because large binaries bloat repository history and should instead be handled with Git LFS or external artifact storage, and option C is not recommended because a single build definition for all projects reduces isolation and forces unrelated projects to rebuild together, whereas per-project or path-filtered build definitions are preferred.
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.