Google just pushed its entire code-review playbook onto GitHub under google/eng-practices. You’ll find two handbooks: one for reviewers, one for authors. Both spell out expectations down to the letter—what a good review looks like, how to request changes, even the fine print on “LGTM” (Looks Good To Me) and “CL” (Changelist). The reviewer guide breaks tasks into bite-sized checks: security, readability, test coverage, performance. It tells you to flag hard-to-understand code, point out missing tests, and dig into memory‐allocation details on C++ patches. The author guide lays out clean commit messages (“<area>: <summary>”), how to split big features into logical CLs, and when to rebase versus merge. Both docs include sample dialogs, checklists and links to Google’s style guides. By open-sourcing this, Google gives every engineering team a free, battle-tested blueprint. The rules emphasize generosity in feedback—call out problems but suggest fixes. They also lock in a consistent review cadence: no CL sits unreviewed for more than 24 hours. That level of discipline powers code quality at Google’s scale. You won’t find vague advice here. The playbooks list exact commands, expected response times and even naming conventions for branches. If your team struggles with patch quality or review bottlenecks, this is operational gold. Grab the repo, tailor the templates and start enforcing those turnaround and checklist rules tomorrow.