cadence-workflow/cadence - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Cadence is a distributed, scalable, durable, and highly available orchestration engine to execute asynchronous long-running business logic in a scalable and resilient way.

C-Rank Grade: S (Elite) - 72/100

External PR Merge Rate: 72%

Response Time: -

First Timer Success: 83%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is cadence-workflow/cadence welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

cadence-workflow/cadence has a recorded first-timer success rate of 83.3%. Repositories ranked S 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 cadence-workflow/cadence respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 0.0 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 72.5 C-Rank™ score (S 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 72.5 places cadence-workflow/cadence in the S tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for cadence-workflow/cadence?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for cadence-workflow/cadence is 72.5%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in cadence-workflow/cadence?

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

cadence-workflow
cadence-workflow/cadenceS•Elite9.5k
GitHub
Back to Explorer
cadence-workflow

cadence-workflow/cadence

9,484
Active (30d)S•Elite(72/100)Go

Cadence is a distributed, scalable, durable, and highly available orchestration engine to execute asynchronous long-running business logic in a scalable and resilient way.

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

High-Friction Gatekeeper

Warmth Score
6.0/10
Patience Score
6.7/10
Nitpick Rate
52%

Rigorous architecture standards (80% critical review signals). Ensure PRs strictly follow guidelines before requesting review in cadence-workflow/cadence.

Top PR Submission Do's

  • •Add unit tests with >80% coverage for modified code paths
  • •Use conventional commit messages and clean branch names
  • •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
-
No reviewer activity recorded

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
72.5%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
83.3%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
25 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
72.5%
Merge Gauge
83.3%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe54/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Context The cadence-system domain hosts internal system workflows, including the diagnostics workflow started by the frontend DiagnoseWorkflowExecution handler. Its name is defined once as constants.SystemLocalDomainName in common/constants/constants.go, and the worker service creates the domain from that constant at startup in service/worker/service.go (ensureDomainExists). Caveat: the Cassandra schema also seeds this domain directly in schema migrations (schema/cassandra/cadence/versioned/v0.12/system_domain_bootstrap.cql and v0.23/system_domain.cql), so those files also carry the literal name. Other databases (MySQL, Postgres, SQLite) have no such seed and rely entirely on worker provisioning. Any rename of the constant must account for the Cassandra seed as well. Problem service/frontend/api/handler.go (around line 220, DiagnoseWorkflowExecution) hardcodes the string literal "cadence-system" as the target domain for the diagnostics workflow instead of using the shared constant.

📅 Opened Sep 23, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 65/100Contribute

Description NewSemaphoreMetadataManager in common/persistence/client/factory.go returns the bare manager implementation with no wrappers at all: result := p.NewSemaphoreMetadataManagerImpl(store, f.logger) return result, nil The core data-path managers (Task, Shard, History, Domain, Execution) are wrapped with errorinjectors → ratelimited → metered. SemaphoreMetadataManager has none of the three — no wrapper files exist for it under common/persistence/wrappers/ and there are no gowrap go:generate directives for it in common/persistence/data_manager_interfaces.go. Consequences: No persistence metrics: semaphore metadata reads/writes emit no latency or error metrics, so failures and slowness in this path are invisible. No rate limiting: semaphore metadata traffic does not honor the datastore QPS quotas. No error injection: the path is skipped by persistence error-injection testing. Fix: add the three gowrap gen go:generate directives for SemaphoreMetadataManager (templates error

📅 Opened Aug 20, 2026💬 3 comments
Quality: 40/100Contribute

Description NewDomainAuditManager in common/persistence/client/factory.go returns the bare manager implementation with no wrappers at all: result := p.NewDomainAuditManagerImpl(store, f.logger, p.NewPayloadSerializer(), f.dc) return result, nil The core data-path managers (Task, Shard, History, Domain, Execution) are wrapped with errorinjectors → ratelimited → metered. DomainAuditManager has none of the three — no wrapper files exist for it under common/persistence/wrappers/ and there are no gowrap go:generate directives for it in common/persistence/data_manager_interfaces.go. Consequences: No persistence metrics: domain audit reads/writes emit no latency or error metrics, so failures and slowness in the audit path are invisible. No rate limiting: audit traffic does not honor the datastore QPS quotas. No error injection: the audit path is skipped by persistence error-injection testing. Domain audit is low-QPS control-plane traffic, so the missing metrics are the biggest practi

📅 Opened Aug 20, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 40/100Contribute

Description Every integration suite in host/ pays an unconditional 11-second sleep during setup, and helper code adds more fixed sleeps during tests. With ~10–14 suites running sequentially per CI job, that is ~2–2.5 minutes of pure sleeping in every integration job — and it's the main reason suite setup trips the 30s overhead limit. Where the sleeps are: host/integrationbase.go — setupSuite() ends with time.Sleep(cache.DomainCacheRefreshInterval + time.Second) (11s) to wait for registered domains to become visible. DomainCacheRefreshInterval is a hardcoded 10 * time.Second const in common/cache/domainCache.go — there is no config knob. Same file — the domainCacheRefresh() helper hard-sleeps 2s; suites that call it mid-test pay 2s per call. setupSuite() also registers 4–5 domains via sequential RPCs before the sleep. Proposed changes: Make the domain-cache refresh interval injectable for tests (e.g. a test-cluster config field defaulting to the current const, set to ~1

📅 Opened Aug 11, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 30/100Contribute

Description All 18 jobs in ci-checks.yml start from a cache-less runner and independently rebuild the same test image and recompile the entire Go dependency graph. Measured: ~2.75 min of fixed setup per job, every run (docker build/pull/compose bring-up), plus in-container compilation that is never cached. Specifics: The compose build: blocks in docker/github_actions/docker-compose.yml have no cache_from/cache_to — the Dockerfile's apt-get, pip, and go mod download layers rebuild 18×. actions/setup-go@v5 caches GOMODCACHE/GOCACHE on the host, but compilation happens inside docker compose run containers whose Go dirs are never volume-mounted — the cache step is dead weight. Superseded pushes don't cancel in-flight runs: ci-checks.yml has no concurrency group, so pushing twice quickly runs 36 jobs. ~14 jobs use fetch-depth: 0 (full-history clone) without needing history; no job-level timeout-minutes (GitHub's 360-min default applies if something hangs outside the retry step). Prop

📅 Opened Aug 11, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 30/100Contribute
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 cadence-workflow/cadence

When evaluating whether to contribute to cadence-workflow/cadence, 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 cadence-workflow/cadence acknowledge new external contributions in approximately -. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 72.5% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to cadence-workflow/cadence

01

Is cadence-workflow/cadence welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

cadence-workflow/cadence has a recorded first-timer success rate of 83.3%. Repositories ranked Elite 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 ~-. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 72.5 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 72.5 places cadence-workflow/cadence in the Elite tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for cadence-workflow/cadence?

The external pull request merge rate is 72.5%. 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 cadence-workflow/cadence?

Yes, cadence-workflow/cadence 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 cadence-workflow/cadence 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.