Automattic/harper - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Offline, privacy-first grammar checker. Fast, open-source, Rust-powered

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 59/100

External PR Merge Rate: 70%

Response Time: 3d

First Timer Success: 43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Automattic/harper welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

Automattic/harper has a recorded first-timer success rate of 42.9%. 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 Automattic/harper respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 62.6 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 59.1 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 59.1 places Automattic/harper in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for Automattic/harper?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for Automattic/harper is 69.9%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in Automattic/harper?

Automattic/harper currently has 31 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

Automattic
Automattic/harperAWelcoming14.7k
GitHub
Back to Explorer
Automattic

Automattic/harper

14,730
AWelcoming(59/100)Rust

Offline, privacy-first grammar checker. Fast, open-source, Rust-powered

Compare
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Constructive Code Reviewer

Warmth Score
8.2/10
Patience Score
8.4/10
Nitpick Rate
22%

Balanced & professional review environment in Automattic/harper. Maintains strict focus on technical quality and test standards.

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
69.9%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
42.9%
Accepts new contributor PRs

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
55 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
69.9%
Merge Gauge
42.9%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe41/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

My PR #4211 passes all cargo test for rust but keeps failing in the Obsidian integration. I'm not doing to well trying to understand the error messages so I'm not positive but I'm tending toward thinking that when the OneOfMany config type was introduced that support for it might not have been added as needed to the Obsidian plugin. Both CoPilot here on GitHub and the free AI agent in my editor (Devin) seem not to have been able to figure out why there are failures in the Obsidian integration. Because the Obsidian plugin uses harper.js the problem could be there or in the WASM?

📅 Opened Aug 25, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 90/100Contribute

I was planning to add more linters that handle verbs with multiple past participles like "hanged" vs "hung", "dived" vs "dove", "pleaded" vs "pled", and started looking at how I did the "sneaked" vs "snuck" one. This led me to discover that both "sneaked" and "snuck" are now flagged: Digging further in #4209 I discovered that this is due to the change in linter configuration from lint_group/mod.rs to default_configuration.json and the fact that there is a OneOfMany type of linter preference that was introduced. I've looked manually, Googled in both site:github.com/Automattic/harper and site:writewithharper.com, and asked the built-in coding agent in the Devin fork of VS Code if it can find documentation for OneOfMany and we can't find any. We could still be missing something but it seems to be undocumented and so far not used for any linter. I have not dug into whether anything needs to be documented downstream for harper.js or any of the integrations.

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

This is even more important than it already was due to the rise of AI-generated rules, which are still terrible at including real-world examples rather than contrived examples made on assumptions that are too short-sighted to avoid false positives. (Humans also do this, but humans that become Harper contributors can learn how to overcome this. So far AIs can't.) An ideal tool would use existing corpora and XML/database dumps, feeds, and APIs of coding and tech-related sites. I believe Stack Overflow still publishes database dumps, or at least that older ones are still available. Neither Slashdot nor Hacker News publish dumps but that do seem to have real-time feeds. For GitHub we might be able to leverage their search API. Such a tool would probably not belong in the Harper repo, but as one or more separate projects. But ideally may be installed on a server that authorized Harper devs/contributors would be able to access for reasons of storage space, API limits, etc.

📅 Opened Jul 17, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

We do have a linter that flags "that" when it should be "than" but I just spotted this exact typo by me right here in a comment and it's not being flagged. way less common that mp3

📅 Opened Jun 30, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 75/100Contribute

I'm not a browser extension expert but I've stumbled through making a couple by following howtos or guidance of an AI. But getting harper.js to work inside one seems to be next level complicated. I'm only using Google Search AI because I don't have tokens for a coding AI but every time it says we're done there's something wrong that's outside my areas of expertise. Maybe it's obvious to a webdev or someone who's made lots of Chrome Extensions. I was going to make a little tool similar to harper-glasses but instead of linting the selected text, called the tokenization API and annotates the tokens in the selection with POS tags. But a tiny example either as part of the Harper docs that just opened a popup/modal and displays the harper-core version it's built with would be nice and minimal perhaps. I also find the harper.js API Reference very opaque. It seems to list only objects and not functions. For instance how to I find the function to get the harper-core version? I'm sure it exists.

📅 Opened Jun 10, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute
Looking for more Rust beginner tasks?Explore Rust 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 Automattic/harper

When evaluating whether to contribute to Automattic/harper, 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 Automattic/harper acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 2 days+. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 69.9% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to Automattic/harper

01

Is Automattic/harper welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

Automattic/harper has a recorded first-timer success rate of 42.9%. 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 59.1 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 59.1 places Automattic/harper in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for Automattic/harper?

The external pull request merge rate is 69.9%. 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 Automattic/harper?

Yes, Automattic/harper currently has 31 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 Automattic/harper 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.