It bothers me that the conclusion doesn't escape the framework of code reviews as places of conflict, and that the author feels guilty for his claimed competence.

> No big deal if the code’s not good, I can fix it myself it I need to.

A mentor can't be passive like that. Don't leave 200 comments like you used to, but distill them into something smaller, more cogent and digestible. More importantly, drop the idea of "good" and focus on what the implementor was thinking. I think the author understands the need for more effective communication in code reviews, but unfairly reduces the exchange to an "argument."

It's also dangerous to correlate work-life balance with incompetence. It's not a contradiction to be good at your job, current with the industry, and present for your family.