Squad: AI agent teams for any project
C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 63/100
External PR Merge Rate: 71%
Response Time: 2d
First Timer Success: 48%
bradygaster/squad has a recorded first-timer success rate of 47.8%. Repositories ranked A typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.
Maintainers in bradygaster/squad respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 37.6 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 62.7 places bradygaster/squad in the A tier.
The external contributor pull request merge rate for bradygaster/squad is 70.8%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.
bradygaster/squad does not currently have active "good first issue" tags indexed, but accepts external contributions through standard GitHub issue tracking.
Squad: AI agent teams for any project
Rigorous architecture standards (75% critical review signals). Ensure PRs strictly follow guidelines before requesting review in bradygaster/squad.
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/bradygaster/squad?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 02:00 UTC (02:00 UTC in your timezone). Recommended submission window is Monday - Wednesday from 01:00 to 05:00 UTC (01:00 - 05:00 UTC local).
Maintainer Strategy: Maintainer Sweet Spot: PRs under 150 lines merge in ~24 hours (88% approval). Large PRs (>500 lines) take ~180 hours (32% approval). Keep your diff compact for rapid review.
Split off from #1436. Problem .squad/templates/ mixes two very different kinds of files, and there is nothing in the repo (or in the generated project) that tells you which is which: Runtime inputs that the coordinator, squad copilot, squad rc, and agent bootstrap read on every run. Deleting these breaks generated projects immediately. Generated / stale copies produced once by squad init and never read back (concretely: .squad/templates/workflows/ and .squad/templates/skills/ as verified in the #1436 investigation). These are just duplicates of what the CLI already ships. New contributors and users who look at the folder cannot tell the safe-to-prune subtrees from the load-bearing ones. This has already caused confusion (#1436). What to do Add a source-of-truth reference that ships with the CLI and lands in generated projects, most likely a .squad/templates/README.md template that is itself part of squad init output. It should: List every subtree under .squad/templates/ and label ea
Split off from #1436. Problem squad upgrade currently rewrites .github/workflows/* from bundled CLI templates without preserving user edits. Projects that have hand-tuned their CI (added a job, changed a trigger, tightened permissions, pinned an action to a SHA) lose those edits silently on every upgrade. There is no prompt, no diff, no backup. This is the operative CI surface, so overwriting it silently is a real regression risk (and a permissions / supply-chain risk in repos that pin action SHAs). Scope Only the operative workflow files under .github/workflows/ are in scope. The stale template copies under .squad/templates/workflows/ are being addressed separately in #1436. Options to evaluate .local-backup pattern. Before overwriting foo.yml, copy the current file to foo.yml.local-backup (or foo.yml.pre-upgrade-<timestamp>.bak) so the user always has the previous version on disk. Pros: zero UX changes, always safe. Cons: leaves clutter, does not stop the overwrite. Preserve sentine
Summary squad watch resolves externalized state for its startup reads only. watch/index.ts calls effectiveSquadDir() and uses the external-aware stateDir to find team.md / routing.md — but then hands every capability teamRoot = path.dirname(local .squad), and the capabilities all build path.join(context.teamRoot, '.squad', ...). On an externalized project the local .squad/ contains only config.json, so watch starts cleanly and then every state-reading capability silently no-ops against an empty directory while the real state sits in the external dir. This is the watch-shaped remainder of the #1402 family: export (#1396), copilot (#1397), rc (#1398), and cast (#1399) got fixed; #949 fixed watch's startup reads but the capability layer was never in scope. Steps to reproduce Verified on dev @ e57b904 (built dist, squad-cli 0.11.0), Windows 11, Node v22.21.0, sandboxed APPDATA. mkdir -p watchproj/.squad/decisions/inbox && cd watchproj echo "# Team" > .squad/team.md echo "# Routing" > .sq
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 bradygaster/squad, 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 bradygaster/squad acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 1 days+. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 70.8% were successfully merged into the primary branch.
bradygaster/squad has a recorded first-timer success rate of 47.8%. Repositories ranked Welcoming typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.
The initial maintainer response time averages ~1 days+. 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 62.7 places bradygaster/squad in the Welcoming tier.
The external pull request merge rate is 70.8%. GetMerged isolates non-core community contributions so external developers get an accurate benchmark of PR acceptance probability.
bradygaster/squad does not have open beginner labels indexed currently, but external PRs for bugs and documentation improvements are evaluated via normal issue triage.
All metrics displayed for bradygaster/squad 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.