When a 2,000‑line Pull Request lands on a Thursday afternoon, it touches dozens of files across multiple modules. Reviewers must reconstruct the author’s mental model, causing heavy context switching and often postponing the review. While the PR sits idle, the main branch advances, spawning merge conflicts and inflating rework costs and delays downstream testing.

Splitting work into small, frequent Pull Requests—often under a hundred lines—lets reviewers finish the check in minutes, keeping feedback fresh and precise, and reduces the cognitive load on engineers. The reduced blast radius limits defects, cuts conflict frequency, and enables daily deployments. Teams report steadier flow, higher morale, and quicker course‑corrections when changes arrive continuously.

Adopting the practice requires clear agreements: set size thresholds, define review‑turnaround expectations, and use CI tools to flag oversized PRs. Techniques such as feature toggles, isolated refactoring, and vertical slicing of user stories keep work independent. Measuring lead time for changes and code review cycle time validates the improvement and fosters a culture of continuous improvement.