Maybe our brains are wired different but reading and reviewing code is way faster for me than writing it.

There's very few objective ways to measure review 'performance'.

Coding is easy, it works or doesn't.

Or it works till it doesn't. There is a lot of code that will work until some condition is met.

This ignores a bunch of higher level and long-term concepts like maintenance, complexity and extensibility.

With only "it works" you end up like this (iconic HN comment on Oracle codebase): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442637

Yes, my point is that you don't even have "it compiles" as a way to measure a code review. Maybe you did a great job, maybe you did a terrible job, how do you tell?