Personal README: Teammate Edition

In the previous post I wrote about how I share a personal README with any new manager that I report to. What I’ll be discussing here is a similar idea but targeted towards new teammates.

Admittedly, I have not sent personal READMEs to teammates in the past since most will understand how I work after enough time seeing it in practice. That said, I can’t think of a good reason not to front-load information like this.

I think that a code style guide is semi-analogous to a personal README. Even when a team doesn’t have an explicit style guide, each developer will still have their own style preferences. If a team of developers are working on the same codebase, then, they will organically form a style “equilibrium” for the codebase (assuming that the team stays the same over time).

A gradual process is fine for most teams, but it has potential for optimization. If the developers can agree, upfront, to a style guide then it can save time in code review. Explicit consensus for conventions is also the basis for automation.

My hypothesis is that the benefits of personal READMEs are comparable to the benefits of code style guides. Obviously it would be difficult to automate the details that are more abstract, but having these discussions ahead-of-time can save time through fewer meetings or discussions.

Here’s my first draft…

Hello! I’m excited to be part of ${COMPANY} and I’m delighted to be working with you on the ${TEAM} team. Thanks for bringing me on board!

I’m looking forward to rummaging through documents, spelunking the depths of version control history, and the “a-ha!” 1 moments to come. Before I get carried away with that, though, I wanted to share a bit about myself that you might find helpful when working with me.

Half of this information is about specific things you’ll see me do on a routine basis. I won’t describe everything that I do, just the subset that might seem uncommon or unusual.

The other half is more philosophical and opinionated. I’ve focused on strongly-held opinions, but none of it’s prescriptive.

As a Reviewer 🔎

On a day-to-day basis, I expect to spend most of my time reviewing code. I have a lot of experience in this capacity and I think that code review is a great place for knowledge transfer, among other things.

When I review code, I:

Scale thoroughness according to impact 2:
I spend more time reviewing changes that could introduce breakages.
I spend less time reviewing changes that are trivial.
Include justifications for my suggestions:
I want the author to understand and agree with requested changes.
Use a comment convention 3:
I include metadata to help the author triage my comments.
Prefer small and focused changes:
It’s easier to detect issues when there is less code to review.
It’s easier to follow along when the changes have fewer goals.

As a Contributor 🏗

I won’t get into low-level details about how I write code since there are better resources available on the subject. Furthermore, writing code is just one part of the challenge of working on a shared codebase.

A bigger challenge, I think, is how to effectively package code changes. Packaging refers to the work that goes into making code changes reviewable and understandable.

When I contribute code, I:

Arrange commits to show an incremental, linear series of events 4:
Each commit is a singular, focused change so that the reviewer can assess scope and impact with less effort.
Each commit is a checkpoint along the way to the reviewer’s complete understanding of the changes.
Differentiate between behavioral and non-behavioral changes:
It’s easier to verify that isolated, non-behavioral changes do not change behavior.
It’s easier to verify that isolated, behavioral changes specifically change behavior in expected ways.
It’s harder to verify that non-behavioral and behavioral, together, are correct.
Annotate changes using code review comments 5:
I write comments on my own pull/merge requests to direct the reviewer’s attention and to provide context for specific changes.
Specify manual test cases in the absence of automated tests:
I test every line of code that I write.
I write down every test that I run, but I don’t write every test as code.

As a Thinker 🤔

If I’m not reading or writing code then it’s because I’m thinking about how to create some software. This is sometimes referred to as software design or architecture.

As software people, I think that we underestimate how much subjective factors such as ideals and fashion influence our work. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s at least something to be conscious of. To that end, I’ll share the opinions that influence how I build things.

As someone that thinks about software, I:

Believe that knowledge maintenance is a significant challenge for any team:
Even small amounts of code in critical paths that no one understands can drag down the productivity of an entire team.
Documentation helps to fill in gaps, but understandable and self-evident software designs are best.
Place more value on prototypes than design documents:
Working software allows stakeholders to interact with their ideas and lets developers prove an initial design. Evidence is better than theory.
Prefer boring technology 6:
Boring tools have fewer unexpected issues.
Fewer unexpected issues means more time spent on your own code and less time spent reporting bugs for someone else’s code.


My way of doing software is not exclusive, you don’t have to agree with me on everything (or anything!). My hope is that this will inspire you to reflect on the things you do and the things you think about in the context of software.

Thanks for reading! I’m looking forward to doing great work with you.


  1. No, not that “a-ha”

  2. Gunnar Morling has a handy visualization of this in “The Code Review Pyramid”

  3. “Conventional Comments” gets the job done and has other nice properties.

    “Gerrit Code Review - Review Labels” is a similar system, though more constrained. 

  4. Greg Tatum goes into detail about this in “Better Code Reviews with Git History Rewriting”.

    Maisie Johnson also has a great write-up in “5 or 6 Ways to Design a Code Review Experience”

  5. See Maisie Johnson’s “Call-to-action comments” in the same post from 4

  6. See Dan McKinley’s classic “Choose Boring Technology”