e-m-b-a/emba - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

EMBA - The firmware security analyzer

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 66/100

External PR Merge Rate: 81%

Response Time: -

First Timer Success: 67%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is e-m-b-a/emba welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

e-m-b-a/emba has a recorded first-timer success rate of 66.7%. 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 e-m-b-a/emba 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 66.1 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 66.1 places e-m-b-a/emba in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for e-m-b-a/emba?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for e-m-b-a/emba is 80.9%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in e-m-b-a/emba?

e-m-b-a/emba currently has 4 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

e-m-b-a
e-m-b-a/embaA•Welcoming3.7k
GitHub
Back to Explorer
e-m-b-a

e-m-b-a/emba

3,704
InactiveA•Welcoming(66/100)Shell

EMBA - The firmware security analyzer

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Welcoming Community Builder

Warmth Score
8.8/10
Patience Score
8.8/10
Nitpick Rate
25%

Highly welcoming maintainers in e-m-b-a/emba. Prompt code reviews with positive guidance for new contributors.

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
-
No reviewer activity recorded

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
80.9%
High acceptance rate for external PRs

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
66.7%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
6 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
80.9%
Merge Gauge
66.7%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe52/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

GetMerged C-Rank badge for e-m-b-a/emba
[![GetMerged C-Rank](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/api/badge/e-m-b-a/emba)](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/e-m-b-a/emba?utm_source=github&utm_medium=badge)

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Describe the bug With PR #2151 we introduced new tests to verify the working of all binary detection rules that are located here https://github.com/e-m-b-a/emba/tree/master/config/bin_version_identifiers To ensure the tests are as good as possible we are trying to build this test-corpus from real-world binary data. To be able to do this we need to find the original firmware with the original binaries to create the corpus data. Currently we already re-created around 300 testfiles for 300 rules. Nevetheless, many tests are currently missing: To make the creation process as easy as possible, EMBA is now automatically creating the identified corpus file on every testrun in the log directory s09_firmware_base_version_check/binary_corpus_tmp. If you are running a firmware scan with the latest EMBA version and you get files in this directory you can directly initiate a PR here How to help? Use the following steps: EMBA installation (default mode) Run a EMBA test with your firmware and the f

📅 Opened Oct 9, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Describe the bug EMBA is using multiple sources and multiple modules to create a as complete as possible SBOM or software inventory. For example she is using package managers like opkg, dep, rpm, python, ... Additionally, she uses the information of packages that are available (dep, rpm, ipk, ...) Finally, she is analysing binaries statically and dynamically As an addon EMBA can also emulate the complete system and extracts further details More and more firmware that we can see has some kind of package manager included. Nevertheless, the majority does not. For these cases EMBA has a quite huge arsenal of version identifiers. You can find them here These identifiers are hand crafted and every component needs a dedicated configuration for detection. This is exactly the area that everyone who is using EMBA can support us to stay competitive. Without your help the detection rate will get less accurate over time and we will miss components and vulnerabilities. Describe the solution you'd

📅 Opened Sep 23, 2026💬 3 comments
Quality: 100/100Contribute

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. Please expand the options in your LocalAI calls to allow us to configure more elements of the URL. Currently, the Scheme, Port and API_endpoint are hardcoded in the /modules/Q03_localai_connector.sh file: line 292: http://"${LOCAL_AI_IP}":8080/v1/chat/completions line 419: http://"${LOCAL_AI_IP}":8080/v1/models Describe the solution you'd like It would be nice if the AI_OPTION=3 parameter could be set as a command line option and/or fixed in the /config/ai_config.env file. In the /config/ai_config.env file contains the Schema (HTTP/HTTPS) -> LOCAL_AI_SCHEME="HTTPS" Port (0-65535) -> LOCAL_AI_PORT="8080" Path to API endpoint: -> LOCAL_AI_API_ENDPOINT="/v1" https://HOSTNAME/v1 - works with the OpenAI libraries and any OpenAI-compatible tool https://HOSTNAME/llm - works with Claude Code and other Anthropic tools Describe alternatives you've considered Instead, we could use an HTTP proxy. Priority issue Are you al

📅 Opened Aug 8, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. This request is directly relevant to the ongoing Podman migration issue in #1845. Both that effort and the deployment failures documented here share the same root constraint: EMBA's current architecture is tightly coupled to a specific Docker daemon workflow, which blocks alternative container runtimes and native execution paths alike. The findings below may provide useful ground-level diagnostic context for that migration. On CachyOS (Arch-based), deploying EMBA fails across all tested methods due to hardcoded environmental assumptions: Strict Docker Gatekeeping: The emba wrapper enforces a strict check_docker_dependencies check, halting execution even when all necessary tools (radare2, binwalk, unblob) are installed natively. Absolute Pathing: Even when the local ./external/ directory is successfully populated with dependencies, internal scripts appear to rely on absolute root paths (e.g., /external/cve-bin-tool/...) exp

📅 Opened Jun 22, 2026💬 4 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. The development of the rust port of binwalk looks stuck. Describe the solution you'd like There is a maintained fork over here https://github.com/binwalk-ng/binwalk-ng We need to test the fork and integrate it into the installer of EMBA. Describe alternatives you've considered Stay on the original, unmaintained base is not a good alternative

📅 Opened May 15, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute
Looking for more Shell beginner tasks?Explore Shell 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 e-m-b-a/emba

When evaluating whether to contribute to e-m-b-a/emba, 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 e-m-b-a/emba acknowledge new external contributions in approximately -. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 80.9% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to e-m-b-a/emba

01

Is e-m-b-a/emba welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

e-m-b-a/emba has a recorded first-timer success rate of 66.7%. 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 ~-. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 66.1 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 66.1 places e-m-b-a/emba in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for e-m-b-a/emba?

The external pull request merge rate is 80.9%. 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 e-m-b-a/emba?

Yes, e-m-b-a/emba currently has 4 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 e-m-b-a/emba 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.