When developers complete a feature, they (hopefully) submit it to their colleagues for review. GitHub does this with pull requests. Azure Repos have their own flavor. GitLab uses merge requests. There are many tools.
Code review increases the quality of contributions. It enables the team to have your back. Reviewers might catch mistakes you missed or share ideas you didn’t think of.
But, reviewers can’t guarantee code was written as well as they could have written it if they’d written it themselves. It doesn’t substitute for seniority.
That’s easy to see if we scale up to an extreme example. Five interns plus one senior reviewer doesn’t add up to six seniors. They actually add up to zero seniors because the one you have will be so busy with reviews and helping that they won’t get any work done.
Development is dynamic and creative. You stare into an ocean of tooling and a blank screen and invent a way to implement a feature. There are always many approaches. Some work well. Some don’t. Some seem like they will and then don’t. Sometimes you get halfway through your second approach before you finally realize what you should have done. It takes time and a lot of willingness to rework your own work. Reviewers aren’t spending that time and doing those reworks. They’re looking from a distance at something they didn’t write. They can’t catch everything.
A skilled reviewer can raise the quality of the code they review by 10%-15%. That’s huge value! But it’s also only a little bit of the total. Most of the value still comes from the skills of the developer doing the initial implementation.
You might also want to check out these articles: