berops/claudie - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Cloud-agnostic managed Kubernetes

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 63/100

External PR Merge Rate: 75%

Response Time: 1h

First Timer Success: 50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is berops/claudie welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

berops/claudie 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 berops/claudie respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 1.1 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 62.5 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 62.5 places berops/claudie in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for berops/claudie?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for berops/claudie is 75.0%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in berops/claudie?

berops/claudie does not currently have active "good first issue" tags indexed, but accepts external contributions through standard GitHub issue tracking.

berops
berops/claudieA•Welcoming795
GitHub
Back to Explorer
berops

berops/claudie

795
InactiveA•Welcoming(63/100)Low Sample (<20 PRs)Go

Cloud-agnostic managed Kubernetes

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Active Open-Source Maintainer

Warmth Score
7.8/10
Patience Score
8.2/10
Nitpick Rate
20%

Active maintainer team in berops/claudie welcoming community pull requests and bug fixes.

Top PR Submission Do's

  • •Ensure code complies with repository style conventions
  • •Keep PRs focused and well-documented

Top PR Friction Pitfalls (Don'ts)

  • •Do not submit unlinked PRs without context
  • •Do not break existing automated test suites
Response Velocity
1 hours
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
75.0%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

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
5 core
Small core review team
Diagnostic Health HUD
75.0%
Merge Gauge
50.0%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe74/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (4)

View on GitHub

Current Behaviour DynamicNodePool.AutoscalerConfig is optional, but two definitions of "defined" are in play. The struct tags treat any non-zero block as present, so required_without=Count is satisfied and count is no longer required. Runtime uses isDefined() (Min >= 0 && Max > 0). A block that is non-zero but not usable passes validation, is then ignored by CreateNodepools, and the nodepool is created with count: 0 and no autoscaler. No error anywhere. Accepted today: autoscaler: {min: 3} (max omitted) autoscaler: {min: -1, max: 5} autoscaler: {max: -3} autoscaler: {min: 5, max: 2} is usable per isDefined() and reaches the cluster-autoscaler with min > max. Expected Behaviour A non-zero autoscaler block must be usable: 0 <= min <= max <= 255 and max >= 1, otherwise validation fails. Omitting the block keeps requiring count. min: 0 stays valid for scale-from-zero. Steps To Reproduce Define a dynamic nodepool with autoscaler: {min: 3} and no count. Apply the InputManifest. Validation

📅 Opened Sep 10, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 60/100Contribute

Current Behaviour validateExternalNet (internal/api/manifest/validate_node_pool.go, api/manifest/... after #2216) compares ProviderSpec.Name with the literal "openstack". ProviderSpec.Name is the provider instance name, so: an OpenStack provider named anything else (e.g. openstack-1, as in the docs example) skips the check and externalNetworkName is never required; a non-OpenStack provider that happens to be named openstack is wrongly required to set it. Expected Behaviour externalNetworkName is required when the referenced provider's type is openstack, regardless of the instance name. Steps To Reproduce Define an OpenStack provider named openstack-1 and a dynamic nodepool referencing it without externalNetworkName. Apply the InputManifest. Validation passes although the field is documented as required for OpenStack. Anything else to note drop the external_net tag, callback and pretty-print case, add a test. test-set1 sets the field on an OVH nodepool; drop it since this is intende

📅 Opened Sep 10, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 50/100Contribute

Feature request: add RFC 1918 private ranges to the default noProxy list Problem The default noProxy list in services/ansibler/internal/worker/service/internal/proxy.go#L14 only excludes 127.0.0.1/8, localhost, cluster.local, kubeone's default PodCIDR (10.244.0.0/16) and ServiceCIDR (10.96.0.0/12), plus the exact IPs of the cluster's own nodes. Any other private address is routed through the HTTP proxy, which cannot reach it. Proposal Add the RFC 1918 ranges 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16 to noProxyDefault. Follow-up: appending each node's private IP becomes redundant and can be dropped. Acceptance criteria noProxyDefault includes the three RFC 1918 ranges. Unit test for createNoProxyList() covering the defaults and a user-supplied noProxy Docs updated Follow up, will we need to add private IPs of nodes once this is implemented ?

📅 Opened Sep 9, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 50/100Contribute

commit-proxy-envs-changes.yml: a leaked containerd task causes a permanent reconcile loop, and its retries restart containerd+kubelet fleet-wide Claudie: v0.14.1 (manager, ansibler, kube-eleven) Cluster: k8s v1.34.0, containerd 1.7.29, Ubuntu 24.04.4 LTS, kernel 6.8.0-106-generic Topology: 3 dynamic control-plane nodes (Hetzner Cloud) + 4 static worker nodes (Hetzner dedicated), Cilium with kube-proxy replacement Summary A single leaked containerd task on one control-plane node put our cluster into a reconcile loop that could not clear itself. Every ~65 minutes Claudie retried proxy/commit-proxy-envs-changes.yml; each attempt restarted containerd and kubelet on every node five times in ~4 minutes before reaching the step that fails. That was long enough to drop every pod to NotReady, which stripped all Service endpoints and took down every workload in the cluster for ~4 minutes, once an hour. It ran for 4 consecutive cycles (~3.5h) until we cleared the stale task by hand. It would not

📅 Opened Aug 26, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 50/100Contribute
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 berops/claudie

When evaluating whether to contribute to berops/claudie, 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 berops/claudie acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 1 hours. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 75.0% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to berops/claudie

01

Is berops/claudie welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

berops/claudie 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 ~1 hours. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 62.5 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 62.5 places berops/claudie in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for berops/claudie?

The external pull request merge rate is 75.0%. 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 berops/claudie?

berops/claudie does not have open beginner labels indexed currently, but external PRs for bugs and documentation improvements are evaluated via normal issue triage.

GetMerged C-Rank™ Indexing Standard

All metrics displayed for berops/claudie 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.