alplabai/signex - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Open-source, AI-first EDA tool — GPL licenced or Industry Lead EDA tools compatible schematic and PCB editor built in Rust Language

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 68/100

External PR Merge Rate: 95%

Response Time: 3d

First Timer Success: 50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is alplabai/signex welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

alplabai/signex has a recorded first-timer success rate of 50.0%. 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 alplabai/signex respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 81.8 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 68.4 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 68.4 places alplabai/signex in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for alplabai/signex?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for alplabai/signex is 95.4%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in alplabai/signex?

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

alplabai
alplabai/signexA•Welcoming182
GitHub
Back to Explorer
alplabai

alplabai/signex

182
InactiveA•Welcoming(68/100)Rust

Open-source, AI-first EDA tool — GPL licenced or Industry Lead EDA tools compatible schematic and PCB editor built in Rust Language

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Strict Architecture Gatekeeper

Warmth Score
7.0/10
Patience Score
7.6/10
Nitpick Rate
55%

Strict review standards in alplabai/signex. Ensure PR scope matches issue requirements closely before requesting review.

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
3 days+
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
95.4%
High acceptance rate for external PRs

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
50.0%
Accepts new contributor PRs

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
6 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
95.4%
Merge Gauge
50.0%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe53/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

What happens In the SchLib (.snxsym) editor, all four rows of the Active Bar's Snap dropdown are inert. Clicking "Pin Tips", "Line Endpoints", "Arc Centres" or "Text Origins" does nothing at all — and the dropdown does not even close, which is the tell that separates this from an ordinary not-yet-implemented stub. The other Active Bar dropdowns in the same editor close on click. Where crates/signex-app/src/library/editor/symbol/active_bar/dropdowns.rs:134-169: fn snap_entries(path: PathBuf) -> Vec<DropdownEntry<LibraryMessage>> { let _ = path; // SchLib snap surface is simpler than footprint — pin tips, line // endpoints, arc centres, text origins. All stubs until the // SchLib snap subsystem ships. vec![ DropdownEntry::Header("Snap targets".into()), DropdownEntry::Item(DropdownItem::new( "Pin Tips", LibraryMessage::PrimitiveEditorEvent { path: PathBuf::new(), msg: PrimitiveEdit::Symbol(Symb

📅 Opened Aug 4, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 80/100Contribute

Context Signex publishes checksums with every release (SHA256SUMS.txt, release.yml:206-210) but no software bill of materials. Searching the repo for sbom, cyclonedx, syft, or cargo-auditable finds only SPDX licence headers on source files — no SBOM generation anywhere. This fits work the project already does rather than adding a new concern. deny.toml and the deny · licenses + deps CI job already enforce dependency licensing as a hard gate (ci.yml:108-136), and docs/LICENSING.md plus a 22 KB license-guard.yml show the project takes dependency provenance seriously. An SBOM is that same information, published in a form downstream consumers can actually consume — and for an Apache-2.0 tool that engineering organisations will vendor into their own supply chains, being able to answer "what is in this binary" without building it is worth having. This is not v1.0-gating. It does not block any exit criterion. It is a small, well-bounded improvement to a release pipeline that is otherwise

📅 Opened Jul 16, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 40/100Contribute

Context Nothing checks that Signex's version numbers agree with each other, and they have drifted repeatedly as a result: Cargo.toml:44 says version = "0.14.0". The newest tag is v0.13.0. v0.14.0 was never tagged. v0.12.0 never existed as a release either — planned, merged, never tagged. README.md:12 badges a link to releases/tag/v0.14.0, which 404s, because that tag does not exist. The project's front page links to a missing release. CHANGELOG.md:6 states the problem outright: a missing CHANGELOG section is not an error, the release workflow silently falls back to auto-generated notes, and the enforcement the file used to cite (.claude/hooks/pre-release-guard.sh) is gitignored and does not exist. docs/ROADMAP.md:47-69 tracks the resulting drift as a known gap, and notes the roadmap itself "drifted six versions away from reality" before being reconciled by hand. Every one of those is the same missing guard. The release workflow's CHANGELOG extractor (release.yml:212-255) is deliber

📅 Opened Jul 16, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 40/100Contribute

Context The corpus harness covers .snxpcb as well as .snxsch, but ships with only a couple of board fixtures. This task fills in the PCB half of the 50+ the v1.0 gate calls for. Good news for whoever picks this up: crates/signex-types/src/pcb.rs contains no HashMap, so the .snxpcb writer is already key-order-stable. Unlike the schematic side, this task is not blocked on a determinism fix — the fixtures should be byte-stable as soon as you author them. If one is not, that is a real finding: report it rather than working around it. Scope Add fixtures covering at minimum one each. Consult crates/signex-types/src/pcb.rs and crates/signex-types/src/format/pcb_rows.rs for the authoritative variant lists: empty board; a board with only an outline; a board with a non-default thickness a layer stackup; a populated setup nets — including a net with no pads attached a footprint with pads; a footprint at a non-zero rotation; a footprint on the bottom layer one fixture per PadType variant

📅 Opened Jul 16, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 40/100Contribute

Context The corpus harness walks crates/signex-types/tests/corpus/ but ships with only a handful of seed fixtures. The v1.0 gate calls for 50+ native .snx* projects round-tripping cleanly. This task covers the schematic half. Each fixture is a checked-in .snxsch that the harness parses, re-serialises, and byte-compares against the file on disk. Authoring one is cheap: build the sheet in a small helper, run the harness in bless mode to emit the file, eyeball the output, commit it. From then on the file is the golden and any format drift shows up as a diff. The value is coverage of the feature matrix: today's in-memory tests exercise a handful of shapes, so a regression in any untested corner of the format lands silently. Scope Add fixtures covering at minimum one each. Consult crates/signex-types/src/schematic/mod.rs and sheet.rs for the authoritative field and variant lists: empty sheet; single symbol; a symbol with every TSV row column populated a symbol whose data lives only in ex

📅 Opened Jul 16, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 40/100Contribute
Looking for more Rust beginner tasks?Explore Rust 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 alplabai/signex

When evaluating whether to contribute to alplabai/signex, 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 alplabai/signex acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 3 days+. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 95.4% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to alplabai/signex

01

Is alplabai/signex welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

alplabai/signex has a recorded first-timer success rate of 50.0%. 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 ~3 days+. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 68.4 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 68.4 places alplabai/signex in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for alplabai/signex?

The external pull request merge rate is 95.4%. 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 alplabai/signex?

Yes, alplabai/signex 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 alplabai/signex 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.