WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

'Personal AGI' that thinks on its own. Autonomous cognitive cycle, earned autonomy, 60+ tools. It decides what to do without being told.

C-Rank Grade: S (Elite) - 78/100

External PR Merge Rate: 89%

Response Time: 2d

First Timer Success: 100%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI 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 WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 51.9 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 77.5 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 77.5 places WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI in the S tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI is 89.2%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI?

WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI currently has 94 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

WingedGuardian
WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGIS•Elite89
GitHub
Back to Explorer
WingedGuardian

WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI

89
Active (30d)S•Elite(78/100)Python

'Personal AGI' that thinks on its own. Autonomous cognitive cycle, earned autonomy, 60+ tools. It decides what to do without being told.

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Empathetic Technical Mentor

Warmth Score
8.0/10
Patience Score
8.4/10
Nitpick Rate
25%

Highly welcoming maintainers in WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI. 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
2 days+
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
89.2%
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
6 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
89.2%
Merge Gauge
100.0%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe66/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Bug src/genesis/knowledge/orchestrator.py skips a source whose content hash is unchanged, but when a source's content has changed, re-ingesting it writes the new version's knowledge units and never retires the previous version's units. Both versions stay recallable side by side, so recall can return outdated statements next to current ones with nothing marking which is current. (The in-batch SUPERSEDED path only handles a unit replaced within one batch; it does not retire a prior source version.) Fix On re-ingest of a changed source, retire (supersede, not hard-delete) every unit belonging to that source's previous version, in the same transaction that commits the new units; drop their vectors on the existing post-commit path. Regression test: ingest v1 of a source, ingest a changed v2, assert recall returns only v2 units and v1 units are marked superseded with a pointer to the re-ingest. Follow-on (separate, larger) The pending four-arm knowledge-base retrieval test (plain / context

📅 Opened Oct 11, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Problem web_fetch (src/genesis/mcp/health/web_tools.py) has three gaps for JavaScript-rendered pages (inbox evaluation NGC-69, 2026-10-05): Empty app shells count as success. A JS-only site that returns HTTP 200 with an empty shell is returned as a successful fetch and never retried with a JS-capable backend. urls batches hard-fail without API_KEY_TINYFISH — there is no local JS fallback for multi-URL fetches. The only local JS path is Crawl4AI, which launches a fresh Playwright Chromium per call, is reached by the auto chain only on bot-challenge pages, and is not declared in pyproject.toml (a fresh install does not get it). Proposal (ordered) Fix the chain first (engine-independent): detect an empty/JS-shell response (e.g. tiny extracted text with a script-heavy body, or known SPA root markers) and retry it on the JS-capable rung. Declare Crawl4AI properly or mark it optional with a clear "not installed" reason. Add lexmount/moli (Apache-2.0, local, no Chromium, CDP/WebDriver co

📅 Opened Oct 11, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Problem Genesis cannot tell which of its skills are used. Both hooks that record tool activity skip the Skill tool (scripts/hooks/session_observer_hook.py, scripts/hooks/cc_span_hook.py), and loop_closure_status reports most library skills as uninstrumented. A 14-day transcript measurement (inbox evaluation, 2026-09-27) found skill loads concentrated in one skill (~75% genesis-development), and several skills nudged by the skill-injection hook in many sessions and loaded zero times. New skills are added regularly with no way to learn whether they fire. Proposal A read-only skill_usage_status health MCP tool, built as glue over transcripts Claude Code already writes (no new hook on the hot path): Stream transcripts for Skill tool loads and SKILL.md reads; join with the skill catalog (.claude/skills, src/genesis/skills, the install-local skill library), the per-session skill-injection nudges, and dispatch skill_tags. Report per skill: loads, reads, times nudged, nudge-to-load conversion

📅 Opened Oct 11, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Problem Genesis has no property-based or mechanically checked tests. Enumerated: no hypothesis dependency in pyproject.toml, zero test modules import it; verification elsewhere is example-based unit tests plus LLM-adversarial review. Example tests check the cases someone thought of; the recurring defect class in this repo is the case nobody thought of (parser edge cases, size-bound overruns, ranking ties). Proposal Add hypothesis as a dev/test dependency and write properties for a small first set of pure, invariant-critical functions. Candidates (each to be confirmed as pure and side-effect free before writing properties): scripts/hooks/shell_parse.py — guards depend on it, and it is known to mis-parse line continuations and quoted heredoc bodies. Properties: tokenizing never raises on arbitrary text; a command built from known-safe segments joined by &&/; is split into exactly those segments; quoted content is never reported as a separate command. scripts/hooks/hook_output.py — t

📅 Opened Oct 11, 2026💬 4 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Problem browser_snapshot (src/genesis/mcp/health/browser.py) returns the page's accessibility tree with no element references, so browser_click / browser_fill and friends must be given a CSS or text= selector that the model writes itself. That is the hallucination surface: the docstrings already carry the symptoms (ambiguity errors on text= matches, guidance to prefer hand-crafted specific selectors). Proposal (adapt, not adopt) Indexed element addressing, the pattern used by browser-use/jev-ultrafast and by Microsoft's Playwright MCP: browser_snapshot assigns a short ref to every interactive element ([e12] button "Submit"), from one atomic snapshot. browser_click, browser_fill, browser_press_key (and other element-targeting tools) accept either a ref or the existing selector. Selectors keep working unchanged. Refs are scoped to the snapshot that issued them; after navigation or a DOM change that removes the element, using a stale ref fails with a clear "stale ref, re-snapshot" error

📅 Opened Oct 11, 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 WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI

When evaluating whether to contribute to WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI, 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 WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 2 days+. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 89.2% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI

01

Is WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI 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 ~2 days+. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 77.5 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 77.5 places WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI in the Elite tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI?

The external pull request merge rate is 89.2%. 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 WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI?

Yes, WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI currently has 94 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 WingedGuardian/GENesis-AGI 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.