gogpu/wgpu - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Pure Go WebGPU Implementation

C-Rank Grade: S (Elite) - 76/100

External PR Merge Rate: 95%

Response Time: 3d

First Timer Success: 88%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is gogpu/wgpu welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

gogpu/wgpu has a recorded first-timer success rate of 87.5%. 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 gogpu/wgpu respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 71.6 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 75.6 C-Rankâ„¢ 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 75.6 places gogpu/wgpu in the S tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for gogpu/wgpu?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for gogpu/wgpu is 95.3%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in gogpu/wgpu?

gogpu/wgpu currently has 5 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

gogpu
gogpu/wgpuS•Elite173
GitHub
Back to Explorer
gogpu

gogpu/wgpu

173
S•Elite(76/100)Go

Pure Go WebGPU Implementation

Compare•
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Welcoming Community Builder

Warmth Score
8.2/10
Patience Score
8.4/10
Nitpick Rate
35%

Highly welcoming maintainers in gogpu/wgpu. 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
2 days+
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
95.3%
High acceptance rate for external PRs

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
87.5%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
3 core
Small core review team
Diagnostic Health HUD
95.3%
Merge Gauge
87.5%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe64/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Summary Software backend's SPIR-V interpreter silently returns zero for ~36 unimplemented GLSL.std.450 opcodes. No warning — silent data corruption on any platform using the software backend (servers, embedded, CI, containers, any device without GPU). Current state hal/software/shader/glsl_ext.go implements 47 of ~83 GLSL.std.450 opcodes. The default case at line 345 returns ValUint(0) without any diagnostic. A shader using determinant() in CI silently gets 0.0. Short-term fix Add slog.Warn to the default return — stop hiding the problem: default: hal.Logger().Warn("unimplemented GLSL.std.450 opcode", "opcode", op) return ValUint(0) Architecture: Interpreter + Go Native SIMD are complementary The SPIR-V interpreter (~14K LOC) and the planned naga Go Native SIMD backend serve different roles: SPIR-V Interpreter naga Go Native SIMD Input Any SPIR-V binary naga IR (compile-time) When Runtime (dynamic shaders) Build-time (pre-compiled) Debugging Breakpoints, JSON tr

📅 Opened Aug 28, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

Summary Expand WebGPU validation coverage from ~45% to ~70% of Rust wgpu-core checks. Currently 55 validation functions across core/validate.go (26), internal/raytracing/validate.go (17), and core/indirect_validation.go (12). Key gaps: feature gates, texture usage conflicts, render pass compatibility. Priority areas Feature gate checks (highest impact) None of the 25 feature flags are validated at usage time: FeatureTimestampQuery — not checked on CreateQuerySet FeatureMultiDrawIndirect — not checked on multi-draw calls FeaturePushConstants — not checked on PipelineLayout with push constants FeatureShaderF16 — not checked on shader module with f16 FeatureRayQuery — checked in internal/raytracing/ (9 checks), but NOT in core/ Texture usage conflicts Complete conflict matrix (CopySrc+CopyDst mutual exclusion in same pass) Storage texture read-write conflict detection Multisampled texture usage restrictions Render pass compatibility Color attachment format mismatch with pip

📅 Opened Aug 28, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

Summary Windows GLES has a mutex-protected AdapterContext (167 LOC) with Lock()/Unlock() + runtime.LockOSThread() for thread-safe GL context switching. Linux GLES lacks this abstraction — context management is split between Instance and Surface with no formal locking. Current state Windows (hal/gles/adapter_context.go): Single WGL context owned by Instance Lock() / LockForDC() / Unlock() with mutex + runtime.LockOSThread() Surface borrows context via Lock — lightweight Linux (hal/gles/api_linux.go): X11/headless: Instance creates EGL context, shares with Surface (ownsContext: false) Wayland: Surface creates own EGL context (ownsContext: true) — GL objects not shared across surfaces No mutex, no Lock/Unlock, no runtime.LockOSThread() What's needed adapter_context_linux.go with EGL Lock/Unlock pattern matching Windows Mutex + runtime.LockOSThread() for thread safety on Linux Wayland context-per-surface as documented intentional divergence Refactor api_linux.go Instance to use

📅 Opened Aug 28, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

Summary Pipeline cache reduces pipeline creation time on second launch by caching driver-compiled GPU ISA to disk. Currently we pass VK_NULL_HANDLE / null on both Vulkan and DX12 — all pipelines recompile from scratch every launch. Why this matters For 15-30 pipelines (typical GUI app): Scenario Cold start Current (no cache) ~150-300ms With pipeline cache ~3-5ms Pipeline cache is independent of shader compiler — DXIL, FXC, or SPIR-V all benefit. The cache saves driver-compiled GPU ISA (machine code), not shader bytecode. Vulkan VkPipelineCache API bindings fully generated in vk/commands_gen.go (lines 1497-1541): CreatePipelineCache, DestroyPipelineCache, GetPipelineCacheData, MergePipelineCaches. All loaded but unused — pipeline.go:324 passes 0 as cache handle. Rust wgpu has full Vulkan pipeline cache implementation (wgpu-hal/src/vulkan/device.rs:2448-2466). Work: Add pipelineCache field to Vulkan Device Create cache at device init, pass to all vkCreateGraphicsPipeli

📅 Opened Aug 28, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

Summary Device.CreateQuerySet and Device.CreateRenderBundleEncoder are fully implemented on all 6 HAL backends but have no public API wrapper. Users must access HAL directly to use these features. What's ready (all 6 backends) CreateQuerySet: Vulkan: hal/vulkan/query.go DX12: hal/dx12/query.go Metal: hal/metal/device.go GLES: hal/gles/device.go Software: hal/software/device.go (returns ErrTimestampsNotSupported) Noop: hal/noop/device.go (returns ErrTimestampsNotSupported) CreateRenderBundleEncoder: implemented on all 6 backends. What's missing Two methods in root package (device_native.go, ~30 LOC each): func (d *Device) CreateQuerySet(desc *QuerySetDescriptor) (*QuerySet, error) func (d *Device) CreateRenderBundleEncoder(desc *RenderBundleEncoderDescriptor) (*RenderBundleEncoder, error) Plus corresponding public types if not yet in the root package. Impact Without CreateQuerySet, users cannot do timestamp or occlusion queries through the public API. This is a gap for profiling and p

📅 Opened Aug 28, 2026💬 0 comments
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 gogpu/wgpu

When evaluating whether to contribute to gogpu/wgpu, 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 gogpu/wgpu acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 2 days+. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 95.3% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to gogpu/wgpu

01

Is gogpu/wgpu welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

gogpu/wgpu has a recorded first-timer success rate of 87.5%. 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 ~2 days+. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 75.6 C-Rankâ„¢ score represent?

The C-Rankâ„¢ 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 75.6 places gogpu/wgpu in the Elite tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for gogpu/wgpu?

The external pull request merge rate is 95.3%. 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 gogpu/wgpu?

Yes, gogpu/wgpu currently has 5 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels. You can inspect these directly from the repository issues tab.

GetMerged C-Rankâ„¢ Indexing Standard

All metrics displayed for gogpu/wgpu 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.

gogpu/wgpu • 75.6/100 C-Rank (S-Tier) | GetMerged