Agent-Field/agentfield - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Build, run and scale AI agents like API and microservices

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 67/100

External PR Merge Rate: 75%

Response Time: 2d

First Timer Success: 65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Agent-Field/agentfield welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

Agent-Field/agentfield has a recorded first-timer success rate of 64.7%. Repositories ranked A typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

Maintainers in Agent-Field/agentfield respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 55.0 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 67.1 C-Rank™ score (A Tier) represent?

The C-Rank™ system evaluates GitHub projects on a 0–100 scale using real data: PR merge rates, review turnaround time, active maintainer presence, and first-time contributor success. A score of 67.1 places Agent-Field/agentfield in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for Agent-Field/agentfield?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for Agent-Field/agentfield is 75.1%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in Agent-Field/agentfield?

Agent-Field/agentfield currently has 8 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

Agent-Field
Agent-Field/agentfieldA•Welcoming2.6k
GitHub
Back to Explorer
Agent-Field

Agent-Field/agentfield

2,606
Active (30d)A•Welcoming(67/100)Go

Build, run and scale AI agents like API and microservices

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

High-Friction Gatekeeper

Warmth Score
6.3/10
Patience Score
7.0/10
Nitpick Rate
47%

Rigorous architecture standards (72% critical review signals). Ensure PRs strictly follow guidelines before requesting review in Agent-Field/agentfield.

Top PR Submission Do's

  • •Add unit tests with >80% coverage for modified code paths
  • •Run repository linter and code formatters locally before pushing
  • •Link relevant GitHub issue ID in PR description pre-flight checklist

Top PR Friction Pitfalls (Don'ts)

  • •Do not submit unlinked PRs without referencing an existing issue
  • •Do not mix refactoring and feature logic into a single commit
  • •Do not ping maintainers repeatedly within 24 hours of opening
Response Velocity
2 days+
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

Tracks hours until a maintainer leaves a review, comment, or PR response.

Merge Efficiency
75.1%
High acceptance rate for external PRs

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
64.7%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
18 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
75.1%
Merge Gauge
64.7%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe49/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

Show contributors that your repository actively reviews and merges external pull requests.

GetMerged C-Rank badge for Agent-Field/agentfield
[![GetMerged C-Rank](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/api/badge/Agent-Field/agentfield)](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/Agent-Field/agentfield?utm_source=github&utm_medium=badge)

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Split out of #620, where the reporter asked for "mypy and ruff for strict checks of async / blocking code". The ruff half shipped in #812 (ASYNC ruleset, enforced in CI on 3.10/3.11/3.12). The mypy half was never adopted: sdk/python/mypy.ini exists but nothing in .github/workflows/sdk-python.yml runs it, and mypy --config-file mypy.ini agentfield/ currently reports ~194 errors across ~28 files. What "done" looks like A mypy step in sdk/python CI that is required to pass. A per-module allowlist ([mypy-agentfield.<module>] with ignore_errors = True) for modules that are not yet clean, so the gate can be turned on immediately and the allowlist shrunk module by module. No # type: ignore sprinkling to get to green — fix the type or allowlist the module. Suggested order Land the CI step with everything allowlisted (zero behaviour change, proves the wiring). Clean the async-heavy modules first, since that is the reporter's concern: run_async.py, lock_utils.py, async_lifecycle.py, result_

📅 Opened Aug 26, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

Summary Opencode users likely don't want their opencode AGENTS.md injected, this bloats the system prompt for all uses of opencode. A better approach is to use the skills feature as was done with claude code. Proposed solution mkdir -p ~/.config/opencode/skills ln -s ~/.agentfield/skills/agentfield/current ~/.config/opencode/skills/agentfield Alternatives considered none Additional context none

📅 Opened Jul 22, 2026💬 6 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

Summary A harness provider needs an external coding-agent to be present at runtime (a CLI binary and/or a Python/JS SDK wrapper, plus auth). Today there is no first-class way to (a) install the providers you intend to use, or (b) verify they are actually installed and usable before you run a real workflow. Failures surface late, mid-run, as a subprocess error inside app.harness(...). This is especially painful in containers/CI where you want the image build to fail fast if a required harness is missing. We want a clean, bloat-free DX for declaring and verifying harness provider availability, consistent across the Python, TypeScript, and Go SDKs. Why "just add pip/npm extras" is not enough The real dependency is usually a binary, not a pip/npm library: Provider Python install TS/JS install Underlying binary claude-code claude-agent-sdk (PyPI) @anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdk (npm) bundles the Claude Code CLI codex openai-codex (PyPI) or raw CLI @openai/codex-sdk (npm) codex (Rust

📅 Opened Jun 24, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Umbrella tracking issue from #654. #654 ships a deliberately provider-agnostic session DX — provider is an explicit, required knob and the transport matrix is multi-provider — but OpenAI WebRTC is the only fully-wired realtime path today. realtime-offer hard-gates to provider=openai+transport=webrtc and posts to api.openai.com/v1/realtime/calls; the declared openrouter: audio_turns pair has no handler. This issue tracks growing sessions into genuinely multi-provider realtime ingress, so AgentField is the provider boundary for more than just OpenAI. Candidate providers / transports OpenRouter (voice-capable models) — tracked in #665. Azure OpenAI Realtime — near drop-in; Azure documents the same SDP-proxy pattern (/openai/v1/realtime/calls, ephemeral via /openai/v1/realtime/client_secrets). Mostly an endpoint + auth swap in createOpenAIRealtimeCall. Google Gemini Live — different protocol (WebSocket bidi streaming, not WebRTC/SDP); needs a dedicated control-plane adapter. Dee

📅 Opened Jun 15, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 40/100Contribute

Follow-up from #654 / discussion. The session transport matrix already declares openrouter: {audio_turns}, but audio_turns has no handler anywhere in the control plane — realtime-offer hard-gates to provider=openai+transport=webrtc and posts to api.openai.com/v1/realtime/calls. So today the matrix advertises an OpenRouter capability that does nothing. This issue tracks making OpenRouter a real, working session provider, including its voice-capable models. Why #654 ships a deliberately provider-agnostic session DX (provider is an explicit, required knob) but only OpenAI is actually wired. OpenRouter is the declared second provider; it should either work or not be advertised. OpenRouter brokers many voice/realtime-capable models; supporting it makes AgentField sessions genuinely multi-provider rather than OpenAI-locked. Scope / open design questions Decide what audio_turns actually is (turn-based audio request/response) vs. whether OpenRouter exposes a realtime/WebRTC path, and impl

📅 Opened Jun 15, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 40/100Contribute
Looking for more Go beginner tasks?Explore Go GFI

Contributor Community Vibe Feedback

Rate what actually matters after opening a pull request here.

Have you contributed to this repo?

Rate your first-hand PR experience (review speed, maintainer responsiveness, and onboarding ease) to help other contributors.

3 ratings required
Maintainer helpfulness
Review speed
Beginner friendliness

Contributor Compatibility & Review Speed Analysis for Agent-Field/agentfield

When evaluating whether to contribute to Agent-Field/agentfield, response velocity and maintainer engagement are crucial. GetMerged continuously tracks pull request trajectories, first-comment latency, and code review rounds to help developers avoid submitting pull requests to backlogged repositories.

Currently, maintainers of Agent-Field/agentfield acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 2 days+. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 75.1% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to Agent-Field/agentfield

01

Is Agent-Field/agentfield welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

Agent-Field/agentfield has a recorded first-timer success rate of 64.7%. Repositories ranked Welcoming typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

02

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

The initial maintainer response time averages ~2 days+. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 67.1 C-Rank™ score represent?

The C-Rank™ index scores repositories on a 0 to 100 scale using an objective formula: external PR merge rates, initial response speed, active maintainer count, and first-time contributor retention. A score of 67.1 places Agent-Field/agentfield in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for Agent-Field/agentfield?

The external pull request merge rate is 75.1%. GetMerged isolates non-core community contributions so external developers get an accurate benchmark of PR acceptance probability.

05

Are there beginner Good First Issues open in Agent-Field/agentfield?

Yes, Agent-Field/agentfield currently has 8 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels. You can inspect these directly from the repository issues tab.

GetMerged C-Rank™ Indexing Standard

All metrics displayed for Agent-Field/agentfield are automatically retrieved via the public GitHub API and recalculated daily. Insider pull requests submitted by repository owners or organization members are excluded from merge rate calculations to preserve objective external contributor statistics.