NVIDIA/NemoClaw - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Run agents like Hermes, LangChain Deep Agents, and OpenClaw more securely inside NVIDIA OpenShell with managed inference

C-Rank Grade: S (Elite) - 71/100

External PR Merge Rate: 75%

Response Time: -

First Timer Success: 54%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is NVIDIA/NemoClaw welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

NVIDIA/NemoClaw has a recorded first-timer success rate of 54.2%. 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 NVIDIA/NemoClaw 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 70.6 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 70.6 places NVIDIA/NemoClaw in the S tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for NVIDIA/NemoClaw?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for NVIDIA/NemoClaw is 74.8%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in NVIDIA/NemoClaw?

NVIDIA/NemoClaw currently has 3 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

NVIDIA
NVIDIA/NemoClawS•Elite22.7k
GitHub
Back to Explorer
NVIDIA

NVIDIA/NemoClaw

22,706
Active (30d)S•Elite(71/100)TypeScript

Run agents like Hermes, LangChain Deep Agents, and OpenClaw more securely inside NVIDIA OpenShell with managed inference

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Welcoming Community Builder

Warmth Score
8.7/10
Patience Score
8.6/10
Nitpick Rate
40%

Highly welcoming maintainers in NVIDIA/NemoClaw. Prompt code reviews with positive guidance for new contributors.

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
-
No reviewer activity recorded

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
74.8%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
54.2%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
69 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
74.8%
Merge Gauge
54.2%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe46/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Description A sandbox post-create failure can print Docker GPU patch failed even when GPU passthrough is disabled and the selected operation is the persistent sandbox startup command. The observed macOS failure reported: Docker GPU patch failed. Could not transfer managed-startup receipt to Docker: ... patched_create_option=persistent sandbox startup command The same output recommends --no-gpu, although the run already has no sandbox GPU. This sends the user toward an unrelated workaround and hides the operation that failed. Current code routes several post-create operations through shared Docker GPU patch diagnostics. PR #11909 changes that ownership and removes most standard managed-bootstrap orchestration. Implementation must wait for #11909 and must use the remaining post-create paths after that PR merges. Dependency Blocked by #11909. After #11909 merges, confirm that a non-GPU post-create path can still produce the misleading headline. If no supported path remains, close this is

📅 Opened Sep 18, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

Description After provider credential validation fails, onboarding tells the user to re-enter the API key and then immediately says not to paste the key: NVIDIA Endpoints authorization failed. Re-enter the API key or choose a different provider/model. ⚠️ Do NOT paste your API key here — use the options below: Options: retry (re-enter key), back (change provider), exit [retry]: The warning applies to the options prompt, not to the masked credential prompt that opens after the user chooses retry. The current wording does not explain that transition. A user can reasonably conclude that onboarding requests a key and forbids entering it at the same time. Issue #9557 and PR #9607 fixed navigation and credential-handling behavior at the re-entry prompt. This issue changes the remaining user-facing text. It does not change credential validation or storage. Expected result The options prompt tells the user to choose retry to open the secure credential prompt. The secure prompt then requ

📅 Opened Sep 18, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 50/100Contribute

Problem The Hermes ACP connection path uses the host-side gateway registry as an authority before it recovers and queries the live OpenShell gateway. That ordering makes cached lifecycle observations a prerequisite for reaching the system that owns the live state. The registry compatibility check currently includes the agent version, OpenShell version, NemoClaw version, lifecycle generation, live identity fingerprint, gateway association, and state root. Some bootstrap information is necessary while a gateway is unavailable, but cached runtime identity and lifecycle observations should not independently decide whether recovery is allowed. This became visible during the fa3e36f5f350d8c1d61fc48bc9b1573707694b99 main E2E incident: Push run: https://github.com/NVIDIA/NemoClaw/actions/runs/34788709180 Repeated Hermes job: https://github.com/NVIDIA/NemoClaw/actions/runs/34788709180/job/103823368458 Related refactor: #11163 The test intentionally stopped the OpenShell gateway and invoked ne

📅 Opened Sep 14, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Objective Reduce repeated root-test setup without hiding scenario inputs or assertions. Sequential PRs Add an onboarding child-process harness for four pilot suites. Add an in-memory onboarding-machine runtime fixture. Add an installer checkout and npm-stub builder. Add a fresh-object OpenClaw environment fixture and canonical corporate-CA test asset. Expected combined net reduction: 1,130–1,700 LOC. Relationships Parent Epic: #8345 Parent hierarchy: #8345 is a child of #8281. Blocked by: None. Work can start independently. Blocks: None. Related work: #8290 covers plugin migration and runner fixtures; it does not own these root-test fixtures. Acceptance criteria Helpers own setup mechanics only. Scenario inputs and behavior assertions remain in each test. Helpers return fresh mutable objects. Helpers restore environment and global state. No generic mock DSL or automatic behavioral default is added. Each migration has a negative net LOC delta. Validation Run affected integration

📅 Opened Aug 5, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

Problem Statement Applications inside a NemoClaw/OpenShell sandbox often see only a high-level transport error such as fetch failed, request timed out, or disconnect/reset before headers. That output does not identify whether the failure occurred during policy evaluation, proxy CONNECT, TLS setup, upstream connection, response headers, or an application protocol exchange. This is especially difficult when the same service works through a direct connection but fails through the managed proxy. Operators currently have to correlate agent logs, CLI output, and OpenShell audit logs manually, often without a shared request identifier. MCP is the first concrete consumer, but the diagnostic contract should be reusable by messaging, provider, webhook, package-fetch, and other managed outbound transports. Desired Behavior Provide a reusable, failure-only managed-transport diagnostic facility that emits a redacted structured event and a correlation identifier across the application and OpenShell

📅 Opened Jul 31, 2026💬 3 comments
Quality: 80/100Contribute
Looking for more TypeScript beginner tasks?Explore TypeScript 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 NVIDIA/NemoClaw

When evaluating whether to contribute to NVIDIA/NemoClaw, 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 NVIDIA/NemoClaw acknowledge new external contributions in approximately -. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 74.8% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to NVIDIA/NemoClaw

01

Is NVIDIA/NemoClaw welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

NVIDIA/NemoClaw has a recorded first-timer success rate of 54.2%. 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 ~-. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 70.6 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 70.6 places NVIDIA/NemoClaw in the Elite tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for NVIDIA/NemoClaw?

The external pull request merge rate is 74.8%. 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 NVIDIA/NemoClaw?

Yes, NVIDIA/NemoClaw currently has 3 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 NVIDIA/NemoClaw 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.