IBM/mcp-context-forge - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

An AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 66/100

External PR Merge Rate: 61%

Response Time: -

First Timer Success: 51%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is IBM/mcp-context-forge welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

IBM/mcp-context-forge has a recorded first-timer success rate of 50.9%. 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 IBM/mcp-context-forge respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 0.0 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 65.6 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 65.6 places IBM/mcp-context-forge in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for IBM/mcp-context-forge?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for IBM/mcp-context-forge is 60.7%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in IBM/mcp-context-forge?

IBM/mcp-context-forge currently has 5 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

IBM
IBM/mcp-context-forgeA•Welcoming4.6k
GitHub
Back to Explorer
IBM

IBM/mcp-context-forge

4,611
Active (30d)A•Welcoming(66/100)Python

An AI Gateway, registry, and proxy that sits in front of any MCP, A2A, or REST/gRPC APIs, exposing a unified endpoint with centralized discovery, guardrails and management. Optimizes Agent & Tool calling, and supports plugins.

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Strict Quality Architect

Warmth Score
6.7/10
Patience Score
7.3/10
Nitpick Rate
41%

Rigorous architecture standards (63% critical review signals). Ensure PRs strictly follow guidelines before requesting review in IBM/mcp-context-forge.

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
-
No reviewer activity recorded

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
60.7%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
50.9%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
65 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
60.7%
Merge Gauge
50.9%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe40/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Repo: contextforge-org/contextforge-web-ui — all file paths below are relative to that repo, not this one. Problem The Field component (src/components/ui/field.tsx) is the standard way to render a label + control + hint/error in this codebase — it handles the required asterisk, aria-invalid/aria-describedby wiring, and an optional info-popover for you. It's already used in ResourceForm, PromptForm, ToolForm, MCPServerForm, etc. A few other places still build that same label + control + error layout by hand with a plain Label (or, in one file, a local copy of Field called FieldLabel). This issue is about swapping those over to Field so the pattern is consistent everywhere it applies. What to do For each location below, replace the Label (or FieldLabel) + manual error/required markup with Field, following the pattern already used in e.g. src/components/prompts/PromptForm.tsx or src/components/gateways/CreateServerForm.tsx. src/components/servers/TestConnectionPanel.tsx — delete t

📅 Opened Sep 28, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 90/100Contribute

🔧 Chore Summary Add build version details below the ContextForge ASCII art printed by run-gunicorn.sh. Use these display forms: Tagged build: Version: v1.0.6 Non-tagged build: Version: v1.0.6+e38a9ce85 For a non-tagged build, the value combines the nearest reachable release tag and the short SHA of the commit being built. On a post-merge main build, that SHA identifies the merged revision. The full build SHA should remain available in build metadata even if the banner uses a short SHA. 🧱 Area Affected Choose the general area(s) that this chore affects: GitHub Actions / CI Pipelines Pre-commit hooks / linters Formatting (black, isort, ruff, etc.) Type-checking (mypy, pyright, pytype, etc.) Dependency cleanup or updates Build system or Makefile Containerization (Docker/Podman) Docs or spellcheck SBOM, CVE scans, licenses, or security checks Other: startup banner and build provenance ⚙️ Context / Rationale The current banner is emitted by run-gunicorn.sh, after P

📅 Opened Jul 29, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 80/100Contribute

Summary Audit of all 230 boolean settings in mcpgateway/config.py found 8 flags that no code reads — verified against settings.<name> references, direct os.getenv("UPPER_CASE") reads, dynamic getattr(settings, ...) access (all such calls use literal strings; none match), and the test suite. They are dead configuration: settable via environment, documented, but completely inert. Three observability flags are excluded from this issue and tracked separately in #5849 because active observability work is about to begin. The dead flags Flag config.py line Claimed behavior elasticsearch_enabled 2158 Send logs to Elasticsearch syslog_enabled 2161 Send logs to syslog webhook_logging_enabled 2164 Send logs to webhook endpoints oauth_discovery_enabled 966 Enable OAuth AS metadata discovery (RFC 8414) performance_tracking_enabled 1993 Enable performance tracking and metrics mcpgateway_grpc_reflection_enabled 1126 Enable gRPC server reflection by default mcpgateway_grpc_tls_ena

📅 Opened Jul 25, 2026💬 5 comments
Quality: 80/100Contribute

Description Configuration imports can fail or behave inconsistently when importing exported gateway and server configuration data back into an existing ContextForge instance. The failures are concentrated in the import flow and Admin UI import state handling. They can affect gateway UPDATE imports, exported tag shapes, masked or undecodable gateway auth values, server conflict checks, and import preview/submit actions. Reproduction Steps Export a configuration containing gateways, servers, and tagged entities. Import that configuration into an instance that already has a gateway/server with the same name. Use the UPDATE conflict strategy, or import data containing exported tag objects and masked gateway credentials. Preview or submit the import from the Admin UI. Expected Behavior UPDATE imports should update the existing gateway/server without failing create-time uniqueness checks. Exported tag data should import cleanly into create/update schemas. Masked, missing, or undecodable a

📅 Opened Jul 6, 2026💬 3 comments
Quality: 55/100Contribute

Description The project has replaced black with ruff for code formatting, but documentation still references black in several places. Files to Update Makefile Line 210: Comment mentions black in list of tools Line 227: Comment about black being invoked via uvx Line 239: Comment about black vs pylint behavior Line 3604: Help text mentions make lint-quick uses black Line 3608: Help text for black target (target removed but help remains) Line 3677: FILE_AWARE_LINTERS variable includes black Line 3680: .PHONY declaration includes black targets Line 3745-3757: lint-quick target comments and calls to black Line 3777: lint-fix target calls black Line 4081-4085: Deprecated black-check target and alias Line 4637: pre-commit target calls black pyproject.toml Line 366: Comment mentions black in tool configurations Documentation Files AGENTS.md: Mentions black in coding standards llms/testing.md, llms/mcp-server-python.md, llms/mkdocs.md, llms/plugins-llms.md, llms/mcpgateway.md: Various blac

📅 Opened Jun 16, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute
Looking for more Python beginner tasks?Explore Python 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 IBM/mcp-context-forge

When evaluating whether to contribute to IBM/mcp-context-forge, 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 IBM/mcp-context-forge acknowledge new external contributions in approximately -. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 60.7% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to IBM/mcp-context-forge

01

Is IBM/mcp-context-forge welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

IBM/mcp-context-forge has a recorded first-timer success rate of 50.9%. 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 ~-. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 65.6 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 65.6 places IBM/mcp-context-forge in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for IBM/mcp-context-forge?

The external pull request merge rate is 60.7%. 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 IBM/mcp-context-forge?

Yes, IBM/mcp-context-forge currently has 5 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 IBM/mcp-context-forge 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.