DecapodLabs/decapod - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Repo-native governance kernel for bounded, convergent, proof-backed agent work.

C-Rank Grade: S (Elite) - 79/100

External PR Merge Rate: 95%

Response Time: 12h

First Timer Success: 100%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is DecapodLabs/decapod welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

DecapodLabs/decapod has a recorded first-timer success rate of 100.0%. Repositories ranked S 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 DecapodLabs/decapod respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 12.1 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 78.8 C-Rank™ score (S 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 78.8 places DecapodLabs/decapod in the S tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for DecapodLabs/decapod?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for DecapodLabs/decapod is 95.4%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in DecapodLabs/decapod?

DecapodLabs/decapod currently has 11 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

DecapodLabs
DecapodLabs/decapodSElite232
GitHub
Back to Explorer
DecapodLabs

DecapodLabs/decapod

232
SElite(79/100)Rust

Repo-native governance kernel for bounded, convergent, proof-backed agent work.

Compare
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Welcoming Community Builder

Warmth Score
7.9/10
Patience Score
8.2/10
Nitpick Rate
40%

Collaborative maintainer environment in DecapodLabs/decapod. Reviews community pull requests with focus on project quality.

Top PR Submission Do's

  • Ensure code complies with the project coding style
  • Keep PRs scoped to a single concern
  • Include context and link to the related issue

Top PR Friction Pitfalls (Don'ts)

  • Do not submit PRs without linking an issue
  • Do not break existing tests without fixing them
  • Do not mix unrelated refactors in a single PR
Response Velocity
12 hours
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
95.4%
High acceptance rate for external PRs

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
100.0%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
2 core
Small core review team
Diagnostic Health HUD
95.4%
Merge Gauge
100.0%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe89/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Presently, .decapod/README.md scaffold template uses verbiage and instructions not intended for human use. That readme is for the human only, so it doesn't need decapod commands. That file only exists in the project after they ran the one decapod command (decapod init) -- from there, they should just use the .decapod/config.toml and .decapod/OVERRIDE.md while pointing the user to the official user docs (mdbook) and also a brief explanation of the .decapod folder hierarchy.

📅 Opened Aug 7, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 60/100Contribute

Context Surfaced in PR #1162: agents guess decapod specs.refresh as a top-level subcommand (from AGENTS.md shorthand). It is not a CLI subcommand. Actual surfaces Intent Correct invocation RPC decapod rpc --op specs.refresh CLI flag during validate decapod validate --refresh-specs There is no top-level decapod specs.refresh command. Requested work Document both surfaces in docs/agent/command-contracts.md. Soften or expand any AGENTS.md / entrypoint shorthand that reads like a CLI subcommand. Optionally add an unknown-command recovery hint when agents type specs.refresh. Related PR #1162 #1122 (spec.refresh needs to bump specs contents — behavioral fix; this issue is docs/discoverability) #1079 (manifest path location) Non-goals Implementing a top-level specs.refresh alias (unless product decides otherwise) Changing refresh semantics (owned by #1122)

📅 Opened Aug 3, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

Context Surfaced in PR #1162: the first decapod govern trajectory record call failed with schema mismatches until the agent followed error-message enum hints. Those enums are not documented in docs/agent/command-contracts.md. Observed accepted enums (from CLI error recovery during #1162) trigger ∈ {human, webhook, cron, agent, grader, engine} grader_result ∈ {pass, fail, skipped} status ∈ {open, retrying, passed, failed, blocked} mutation_proposal ∈ {none, prompt, tool, config, rubric, policy} --check "name=status" where status ∈ {passed, failed, partial, unavailable} Initial incorrect guesses included trigger: "user_scope_confirmed", grader_result: "passed", status: "pass". Requested work Add the enum tables (or a linked schema snippet) to docs/agent/command-contracts.md under govern trajectory record. Optionally add a minimal payload example to docs/agent/payload-examples.md. Prefer documenting the same values the binary validates, not a second source of truth — if val

📅 Opened Aug 3, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

Context Surfaced in PR #1162 oddities while updating agent-facing indexes for contribution-conventions.md. Problem Three agent doc indexes list different subsets and use different structures: File Scope today docs/agent/README.md Agent corpus only; no mcp.md (PR #1162 added contribution-conventions) docs/agent/api-index.md Documentation Index Agent corpus including mcp.md + contribution-conventions docs/agent/llms.txt Agent corpus and full human book (docs/book/src/*) under a single "Decapod Agent Docs" framing (book is split under a second header after #1162-ish state, but historically mixed) Agents that only read one index miss docs listed in another. mcp.md is the clearest pre-existing gap in README. Requested work Pick one canonical source of truth for the agent corpus list (prefer api-index.md Documentation Index or generate from a shared list). Make README.md and the agent section of llms.txt derive from or match that list. Keep human-book entries under a clearly s

📅 Opened Aug 3, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

All 4 governance .json files have more fields than absolutely necessary. Claims doesn't need timestamps, etc. Cut all governance .json files (and schemas) down to bare essential to reduce overhead and drift.

📅 Opened Jul 31, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 35/100Contribute
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 DecapodLabs/decapod

When evaluating whether to contribute to DecapodLabs/decapod, 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 DecapodLabs/decapod acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 12 hours. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 95.4% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to DecapodLabs/decapod

01

Is DecapodLabs/decapod welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

DecapodLabs/decapod has a recorded first-timer success rate of 100.0%. Repositories ranked Elite 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 ~12 hours. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 78.8 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 78.8 places DecapodLabs/decapod in the Elite tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for DecapodLabs/decapod?

The external pull request merge rate is 95.4%. 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 DecapodLabs/decapod?

Yes, DecapodLabs/decapod currently has 11 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 DecapodLabs/decapod 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.