The ideal number of reviewers per PR is a topic of debate, with no universally "correct" answer. The benefits of having two reviewers include better code quality, knowledge sharing, and balanced feedback, but also slower merges, review overload, and burnout. Research suggests that involving two reviewers per PR is common across various organizations, but the optimal number can vary depending on team size, complexity, and workflow. Factors like review frequency, speed, and team size play a role in shaping this decision. In certain situations, having two reviewers works well for high-impact changes, while for routine changes or small bug fixes, it may feel like overkill. The right context matters, with smaller startups often preferring single reviewers and larger companies using multiple reviewers. A hybrid approach, reserving critical PRs for two reviewers and minor changes for one reviewer, might be the ideal solution, with AI tools potentially changing the definition of a "critical" PR in the future.