Agent-assisted maintainership and development framework for Apache projects — Triage, Mentoring, Drafting (agent-authored fixes with human review), and Pairing (developer-side dev-cycle) skills shipping; Agentic Autonomous (auto-merge) on the roadmap.
C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 59/100
External PR Merge Rate: 14%
Response Time: 5h
First Timer Success: -
apache/magpie has a recorded first-timer success rate of 0.0%. Repositories ranked A typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.
Maintainers in apache/magpie respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 5.0 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.
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 59.0 places apache/magpie in the A tier.
The external contributor pull request merge rate for apache/magpie is 13.6%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.
apache/magpie currently has 15 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".
Agent-assisted maintainership and development framework for Apache projects — Triage, Mentoring, Drafting (agent-authored fixes with human review), and Pairing (developer-side dev-cycle) skills shipping; Agentic Autonomous (auto-merge) on the roadmap.
Strict review standards in apache/magpie. Ensure PR scope matches issue requirements closely before requesting review.
Discussions in apache/magpie focus heavily on practical implementation feedback, code formatting standards, and issue reproduction details.
Unlinked PRs without issue context and changes that fail automated test suites face the highest review friction.
Average Response Latency
Tracks hours until a maintainer leaves a review, comment, or PR response.
External Acceptance Rate
Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.
First PR Conversion
Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.
Show contributors that your repository actively reviews and merges external pull requests.
[](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/apache/magpie?utm_source=github&utm_medium=badge)
Historical health & responsiveness evolution
External PR acceptance
First PR success rate
50% receive response in
90% receive response in
Maintainer review activity heatmap & prime window prediction
Calculating local time...
Calculating local time...
Detected: UTC
Maintainers are most responsive around 22:00 UTC (22:00 UTC in your timezone). Recommended submission window is Monday - Wednesday from 22:00 to 02:00 UTC (22:00 - 02:00 UTC local).
Maintainer Strategy: Maintainer Sweet Spot: PRs under 150 lines merge in ~4 hours (17% approval). Large PRs (>500 lines) take ~24 hours (15% approval). Keep your diff compact for rapid review.
Add tools/bitbucket/ as a forge + tracker bridge for Bitbucket (Atlassian Cloud and self-hosted Data Center), analogous to tools/github/ and the tools/gitlab/ bridge (#305). Bitbucket is a major Git forge with no coverage today, and it has deep Jira integration — pairing naturally with the existing tools/jira/ tracker bridge. Capabilities to provide (mirror the GitHub bridge): Issue read/write (Bitbucket issues and linked Jira, via tools/jira/) Pull-request read/write: view/list, create/edit/merge, comment, review/approve Repo metadata, branch permissions Pipelines read for CI status checks Bitbucket Cloud REST API + Data Center REST API (note: the two API flavours differ — abstract behind one bridge) Why: Bitbucket is the default forge across the Atlassian enterprise ecosystem and a large share of corporate OSS. It historically hosted Mercurial too (dropped in 2020), which is part of why Hg projects scattered — so a Bitbucket bridge plus the Mercurial bridge together recover t
Add tools/perforce/ for Perforce / Helix Core (p4), the dominant centralized VCS in games, film/VFX, semiconductor, and large-binary monorepo shops. Unlike every other bridge so far, Perforce is server-centric: changelists instead of local commits, explicit p4 edit checkout-before-write, and depot paths instead of branches. The dev-loop skills' distributed-Git assumptions don't map cleanly, so this bridge mostly defines how the fix-workflow behaves in a centralized model. Capabilities to provide: Changelist workflow: p4 edit / p4 diff / p4 submit / p4 describe, shelving for review hand-off History read: p4 changes, p4 annotate, file-at-revision Swarm integration (optional): Helix Swarm reviews as the PR/MR analogue for pr-management-* Reuse the VCS-capability shim; document the distributed-vs-centralized divergences explicitly Why: Perforce is the standard in domains GitHub never displaced — AAA game studios, Hollywood pipelines, chip design (EDA), and any org versioning huge binar
Add tools/jujutsu/ so the local dev-loop skills can run on Jujutsu (jj) working copies. jj is Git-compatible at the storage layer but exposes a fundamentally different working model — no staging area, anonymous/auto-evolving changes, first-class conflict commits, and jj-style revsets instead of branches. The fix-workflow and code-review skills, which assume Git's branch/commit/git add model, would produce wrong or confusing steps on a jj repo even though the backing store is Git. Capabilities to provide: Map the dev-loop primitives onto jj: jj new/jj describe for commit, jj diff, jj log, jj bookmark for branch-equivalent hand-off Translate the fix-workflow "create branch → commit → push" recipe into the jj change/bookmark model Detect a jj working copy and route through this shim instead of raw git Reuse the VCS-capability abstraction from tools/mercurial/ Why: jj adoption is growing fast among individual maintainers and at Google (its primary sponsor), and it's a common front-
Add tools/subversion/ for Apache Subversion (SVN) support. This one is directly relevant to the ASF itself: svn.apache.org still hosts active source trees for a number of TLPs, and dist.apache.org (the release-distribution area every ASF release is staged and published through) is SVN, not Git. A framework that stewards ASF project workflows but can't touch SVN is blind to a core piece of ASF release infrastructure. Capabilities to provide: Checkout / update / svn diff / svn status against a working copy History read: svn log, svn blame, file-at-revision Commit with message (write-path gated on explicit user confirmation in the calling skill) dist.apache.org-aware helpers: stage/promote release artefacts under the SVN release area (useful for a future release-management skill family) Reuse the VCS-capability shim introduced by tools/mercurial/ Why: Beyond ASF infra, SVN remains in heavy use across enterprise, legacy OSS, SourceForge-hosted SVN repos, and large monorepos that never mi
Goal: Bring OpenHands (formerly OpenDevin) to feature parity with Claude Code as a skill runtime. Grounds: RFC-AI-0004 Principle 3 — Vendor neutrality. Why OpenHands: Fully open-source (MIT), backend-agnostic (works with any LLM), oriented toward more-autonomous execution (the "fully agentic" end of the spectrum). Adopters who want the framework's skill discipline applied to an autonomous-execution agent — for batch triage, overnight backlog sweeps, automation pipelines — need an OpenHands runtime. What "parity" means (recalibrated for OpenHands' autonomy posture): Skills under .claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md are invokable as OpenHands microagents / instruction sets The tools/* bridges are reachable — OpenHands runs commands in a Docker-sandboxed runtime Sandbox parity: OpenHands already ships a Docker-sandboxed execution model — this is a plus, not a gap. Document the alignment with the framework's bubblewrap baseline (similar threat model, different mechanism) HITL primitiv
Rate what actually matters after opening a pull request here.
Rate your first-hand PR experience (review speed, maintainer responsiveness, and onboarding ease) to help other contributors.
When evaluating whether to contribute to apache/magpie, 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 apache/magpie acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 4 hours. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 13.6% were successfully merged into the primary branch.
apache/magpie has a recorded first-timer success rate of 0.0%. Repositories ranked Welcoming typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.
The initial maintainer response time averages ~4 hours. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.
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 59.0 places apache/magpie in the Welcoming tier.
The external pull request merge rate is 13.6%. GetMerged isolates non-core community contributions so external developers get an accurate benchmark of PR acceptance probability.
Yes, apache/magpie currently has 15 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels. You can inspect these directly from the repository issues tab.
All metrics displayed for apache/magpie 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.