[d4nyll]

Thanks for clarifying. I agree that rejecting a PR can be seen as negative in some companies, but I'd also argue that it's a symptom of a bad culture to view rejected PRs as something negative. And using tools to mask a a negative culture instead of surfacing it may not be wise.

> they should still be a single input in a more holistic picture though.

Whilst, in theory, no single metric should be used to determine performance, in practice it may (especially if your lead is inexperienced). But it can be prevented altogether by exposing individual metrics to indivuals only, and exposing the less granular aggregate metrics to the team and team lead.

> You can show why you couldn't get to a task sooner if you spent time reviewing a lot of PRs on the day.

I think in a culture where you have to justify AND PROVE why you couldn't do a task sooner shows a lack of trust, and the problem won't go away even if you are able to show, this time around, that the delay is justified.

I do think tracking the cost of a PR is important, as it will incentivize smaller PRs. But my point is that exposing the "wrong" metrics (like individual review times) isn't just a data point that people don't have to use, but that it can be harmful as it'll incentivize the wrong behavior (e.g. knowing the team lead value quick reviews, developers may be incentivized to review quicker and thus less thoroughly).