Whilst agreeing with the earlier answers and comments, it may be worth pointing out some types of document can be more effectively reviewed by increasing the semantic significance of commands rather than by hiding them.
For example, \newcommand can be used to replace commonly used command sequences with something more semantically significant. Some examples from a recent article I wrote included:
\newcommand\headingtwo[1]
{\textsf{\textbf{\Large #1}}\par\medskip}
\newcommand\headingthree[1]
{\textsf{\textbf{\large #1}}}
\newcommand\emspaced{\,---\,}
This simplifies the appearance of the document but also makes clearer the semantic intent of many of the commands (in addition to the benefit of allowing document-wide changes by an edit at one place in a document). Checking that appropriate Any-TeX commands have been applied to content can reveal errors that may be harder to find later.
Finally, if you have not already seen it, do read through the answers and associated comments to Workflow for reviewing PDFs generated from TeX? -- it does include material wider than the question might suggest and relevant to your question.
\commands? In the editor? – Seamus Oct 12 '11 at 16:19