alibaba/open-code-review - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Secure, fast, efficient, battle-tested at Alibaba's scale. Hybrid architecture code review tool: deterministic pipelines + LLM Agent, precise line-level comments, built-in multi-language ruleset (NPE, thread-safety, XSS, SQL injection), OpenAI & Anthropic compatible.

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

External PR Merge Rate: 63%

Response Time: 24h

First Timer Success: 59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is alibaba/open-code-review welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

alibaba/open-code-review has a recorded first-timer success rate of 59.2%. 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 alibaba/open-code-review respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 23.6 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 65.9 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 65.9 places alibaba/open-code-review in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for alibaba/open-code-review?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for alibaba/open-code-review is 62.9%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in alibaba/open-code-review?

alibaba/open-code-review currently has 8 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

alibaba
alibaba/open-code-reviewA•Welcoming45.1k
GitHub
Back to Explorer
alibaba

alibaba/open-code-review

45,099
Active (30d)A•Welcoming(66/100)Go

Secure, fast, efficient, battle-tested at Alibaba's scale. Hybrid architecture code review tool: deterministic pipelines + LLM Agent, precise line-level comments, built-in multi-language ruleset (NPE, thread-safety, XSS, SQL injection), OpenAI & Anthropic compatible.

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Constructive Code Reviewer

Warmth Score
7.6/10
Patience Score
8.0/10
Nitpick Rate
30%

Balanced & professional review environment in alibaba/open-code-review. Maintains strict focus on technical quality and test standards.

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
23 hours
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
62.9%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
59.2%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
114 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
62.9%
Merge Gauge
59.2%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe55/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Description ocr review connects to configured MCP servers, registers their tools alongside the built-in tools, and exposes their definitions to the review agent. ocr scan loads the same user configuration but currently only passes its built-in tool definitions to the full-file review agent. Consequently, configured MCP tools cannot be used while scanning files. Make configured MCP tools available to the main task of ocr scan, with the same server configuration, allowlist, name-conflict handling, connection-failure behavior, and bounded shutdown as ocr review. Reuse the existing MCP client registration and definition-collection path rather than introducing a scan-specific MCP implementation. Keep file_read_diff hidden in scan mode; enabling MCP must not add a diff where none exists. The scan pre-plan remains tool-free. Expected behavior: with a configured MCP server, ocr scan --path <file> can invoke an allowed external tool for context while reviewing that file. Without a configured se

📅 Opened Sep 28, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

Summary #1426 closed #1329, but three items from its scope did not actually land, and one more needs a decision. Line references are against main at a003b934. Scope 1. The in-table focus ring still draws outside the scroll container .table a:focus-visible got outline-offset: -2px so the ring is not clipped by .table-scroll (whose overflow-y computes to auto), but three existing rules are more specific and keep +2px: .sessions-page .session-id:focus-visible — style.css:1536, (0,2,0) .repos-page .col-repository a:focus-visible — style.css:1803, (0,2,1) .repos-page .repo-check:focus-visible — style.css:1819, (0,2,0) That is every link in the repos table plus the session id, so the new rule only takes effect on the sessions Compare link. Fix: set -2px on those three, or fold them into the inset group placed after style.css:1819. Give the three rules the inset offset Assert the effective offset, not just that the selector exists 2. A long CWD or branch is still unreadable at nar

📅 Opened Sep 19, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 75/100Contribute

Part of the viewer UI redesign (see #1319). Depends on #1320, #1321. Summary Restyle the lower portion of the session detail page: the Files Reviewed list, the Session Tasks cards, and the Conversations transcript (per-request tool calls). Design reference Files Reviewed (flat list of paths), Session Tasks (grouped task cards — e.g. GROUPING_TASK with request/model/token badges), and Conversations (collapsible per-file groups; each PLAN_TASK / MAIN_TASK request shows model + token badges and expandable TOOL CALLS with arguments/results). Current state Template: internal/viewer/templates/session.html — Files Reviewed list, task cards, and conversation blocks. Helpers in server.go: orderedTasks, taskTypeClass, sessionTaskLabel, groupingView, cardCount (task ordering: Plan → Main → ReLocation → MemoryCompression → Grouping). Script: internal/viewer/static/session.js for collapsibles. Scope Restyle the Files Reviewed list to the mockup. Restyle task cards (type label, r

📅 Opened Sep 16, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 75/100Contribute

Part of the viewer UI redesign (see #1319). Depends on #1320, #1321. Summary Restyle the top of the session detail page (GET /r/{repo}/{sessionID}): the title and the metadata bar. Design reference Header shows Session: <id> with a back chevron, then a compact meta row: CWD · BRANCH · MODE · FROM · TO · MODEL · DURATION · FILES · STATUS. Current state Template: internal/viewer/templates/session.html (title at ~line 16; meta fields follow) Handler: handleSession in internal/viewer/handler.go Scope Restyle the title row with the back chevron. Lay out the meta fields as a compact, labeled row/grid matching the mockup, including truncation for long CWD/branch values. Apply status styling (complete/partial/failed) consistent with tokens from #1320. Out of scope Coverage/Token cards (#1325), comments (#1326), tasks/conversations (#1327). Acceptance criteria Header + meta bar match the mockup in light and dark. make check and make test pass. Parallelization & conflicts D

📅 Opened Sep 16, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 75/100Contribute

Part of the viewer UI redesign (see #1319). Depends on #1320, #1321. Summary Restyle the per-repo Sessions list (GET /r/{repo}) to match the mockup. Design reference A back chevron + title "Sessions: ", and a table with columns Session ID | Branch | Mode | Model | Files | Status | Comments | Duration | Started At | Action (green Check), with bottom-right pagination. Current state Template: internal/viewer/templates/sessions.html Handler: handleSessions in internal/viewer/handler.go Back navigation exists (added in PR #1217). Scope Restyle the title row with the back-navigation chevron (use the icon from #1321). Match the table columns, alignment, truncation (Session ID) and status styling. Style Check as the accent action; align pagination with the mockup. Keep column semantics identical to current data. Out of scope Session detail screen (#1324–#1327). Acceptance criteria Matches the mockup in light and dark; back nav and pagination work. make check and make test pass.

📅 Opened Sep 16, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 75/100Contribute
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 alibaba/open-code-review

When evaluating whether to contribute to alibaba/open-code-review, 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 alibaba/open-code-review acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 23 hours. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 62.9% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to alibaba/open-code-review

01

Is alibaba/open-code-review welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

alibaba/open-code-review has a recorded first-timer success rate of 59.2%. 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 ~23 hours. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 65.9 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 65.9 places alibaba/open-code-review in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for alibaba/open-code-review?

The external pull request merge rate is 62.9%. 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 alibaba/open-code-review?

Yes, alibaba/open-code-review currently has 8 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 alibaba/open-code-review 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.