NVIDIA/nvcf - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Platform for deploying and routing GPU-accelerated inference, streaming, and batch workloads at scale.

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 70/100

External PR Merge Rate: 62%

Response Time: 21h

First Timer Success: 56%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

NVIDIA/nvcf has a recorded first-timer success rate of 56.3%. 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 NVIDIA/nvcf respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 20.7 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 69.9 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 69.9 places NVIDIA/nvcf in the A tier.

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

The external contributor pull request merge rate for NVIDIA/nvcf is 61.8%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in NVIDIA/nvcf?

NVIDIA/nvcf currently has 4 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

NVIDIA
NVIDIA/nvcfA•Welcoming226
GitHub
Back to Explorer
NVIDIA

NVIDIA/nvcf

226
Active (30d)A•Welcoming(70/100)Go

Platform for deploying and routing GPU-accelerated inference, streaming, and batch workloads at scale.

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Strict Quality Architect

Warmth Score
7.2/10
Patience Score
7.6/10
Nitpick Rate
35%

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

Top PR Submission Do's

  • •Add unit tests with >80% coverage for modified code paths
  • •Use conventional commit messages and clean branch names
  • •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
20 hours
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
61.8%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
56.3%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
48 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
61.8%
Merge Gauge
56.3%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe56/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Describe the bug Manager.initializePlugins (manager.go#L110) sets accountName = "" when it reaches the nkey plugin. accountName is the outer loop variable for the account, not a per-plugin copy, so every plugin listed after nkey on that account is registered under account "" instead of its real account. Steps or code to reproduce bug Config: account_configs: APP: enabled_plugins: - id: nkey - id: sis alias: oidc A client authenticating with {"account":"APP","pluginName":"oidc", ...} gets 404 plugin oidc not found for account APP. A copy of the loop registers keys {"", nkey} and {"", oidc}. Expected behavior oidc is registered under APP regardless of where nkey appears in the list. Additional context The chart's default config lists sis before nkey, so stock installs work; any config that lists nkey first breaks the plugins after it. There is no manager test today. Suggested fix: key := accountName; if plugin.ID == "nkey" { key = "" } and a test with nkey liste

📅 Opened Oct 8, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 40/100Contribute

Describe the bug DistributedLockGuard::drop (distributed_lock.rs#L135) releases the lock with DELETE FROM locks WHERE lock_name = ? (statements.rs#L26) and no IF node_id = ?. If the holder ran past the lock TTL, another node may already own the lock; the late drop deletes that node's row, a third node can then acquire it, and multiple nodes process the same bucket concurrently. Both guard users can outlive the TTL: The NVCF API bucket loop (nvcf_client.rs) checks its 15 s budget only before each request, so the final request can run past it. The scaling loop (work/mod.rs) holds a 120 s lock while draining every function in the bucket, with no refresh. The row is also written with an LWT (INSERT ... IF NOT EXISTS) and deleted with a plain write; Cassandra does not order non-LWT writes against Paxos writes on the same partition. Steps or code to reproduce bug Run two autoscaler nodes. Make processing of one bucket take longer than its lock TTL (e.g. slow NVCF API responses). Node B ac

📅 Opened Oct 8, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 40/100Contribute

Describe the bug A stickiness threshold of 12 minutes or more can never be met, so scaling in that direction is disabled with no error. The API accepts stickiness windows up to one hour (AutoscalingConfigurationDto: size <= 1h, threshold < size). The autoscaler fetches utilization over lookback (default 600 s, scaling/mod.rs#L34) at a 60 s step (work/mod.rs#L89), which yields at most 11 samples. breached_enough takes the last window_minutes samples and requires required_minutes of them to breach; with fewer samples than the window it counts what is there, so required_minutes > 11 is unreachable, and a 30-minute window is judged on ~10 minutes of data. Steps or code to reproduce bug Deploy a function with scale-up stickiness size: 30m, threshold: 15m. Hold utilization at 100% for 40 minutes. Watch the autoscaler debug log. Expected behavior Scale-up after 15 breached minutes. Observed: scale-up gate: 11 of 11 recent sample(s) breached (need 15, window 30) every cycle and no scale-up.

📅 Opened Oct 8, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 40/100Contribute

Describe the bug The self-managed stack publishes POST /v1/admin/keys on the shared gateway with no authentication in front of it. Anyone who can reach api-keys.<domain> can mint an admin-scoped NVCF JWT. The proxy checks only the HTTP method before signing (handlers.Keys). Its README and SECURITY.md both state the gateway must authenticate callers, and SECURITY.md lists unauthorized minting as threat 1. deploy/stacks/self-managed/global.yaml.gotmpl hard-codes adminIssuerProxy.gateway.enabled: true on the shared gateway, and the chart's httproute.yaml creates a plain HTTPRoute with no SecurityPolicy or auth filter. The 1.0.1 gateway-routing doc shows calling it through a public AWS ELB hostname. Steps or code to reproduce bug Install the self-managed stack with default values. From any host that can reach the shared gateway, run curl -X POST https://api-keys.<domain>/v1/admin/keys with no credentials. Expected behavior The request is rejected unless the caller is authenticated and

📅 Opened Oct 8, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 40/100Contribute

Describe the bug Store.Get in ratelimiter/olric_store.go increments a counter by reading it with dmap.Get, adding 1 in process, and writing it back with dmap.Put. The read and write are not atomic, so two concurrent checks that read the same value both write N+1 and one request is never counted. The service runs multiple replicas against one embedded Olric cluster, and HTTP invocation / grpc-proxy fire checks asynchronously, so concurrent checks on a hot function version are the normal case. Under load the limiter admits more than the configured rate, and the excess grows with replica count and concurrency. Steps or code to reproduce bug Run the ratelimiter with 2 replicas. Configure a function version with rateLimit: 10-S. Send ~200 concurrent RateLimit RPCs for that function version within one second, spread across both replicas. Count ALLOW results. Expected behavior At most 10 ALLOW results per second. Observed: more than 10, because increments are lost. Additional context The L

📅 Opened Oct 8, 2026💬 0 comments
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 NVIDIA/nvcf

When evaluating whether to contribute to NVIDIA/nvcf, 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/nvcf acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 20 hours. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 61.8% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to NVIDIA/nvcf

01

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

NVIDIA/nvcf has a recorded first-timer success rate of 56.3%. 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 ~20 hours. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 69.9 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 69.9 places NVIDIA/nvcf in the Welcoming tier.

04

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

The external pull request merge rate is 61.8%. 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/nvcf?

Yes, NVIDIA/nvcf currently has 4 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/nvcf 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.