gopherium/gophenberg - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

A plugin-first CMS. Go backend, React admin, Gutenberg editor.

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 65/100

External PR Merge Rate: 71%

Response Time: -

First Timer Success: 100%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is gopherium/gophenberg welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

gopherium/gophenberg has a recorded first-timer success rate of 100.0%. 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 gopherium/gophenberg 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 64.7 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 64.7 places gopherium/gophenberg in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for gopherium/gophenberg?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for gopherium/gophenberg is 71.4%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in gopherium/gophenberg?

gopherium/gophenberg currently has 24 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

gopherium
gopherium/gophenbergA•Welcoming128
GitHub
Back to Explorer
gopherium

gopherium/gophenberg

128
Active (30d)A•Welcoming(65/100)Go

A plugin-first CMS. Go backend, React admin, Gutenberg editor.

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 gopherium/gophenberg 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
-
No reviewer activity recorded

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
71.4%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
100.0%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
2 core
Small core review team
Diagnostic Health HUD
71.4%
Merge Gauge
100.0%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe59/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

The theme kit release should refuse to publish a kit version that no released Gophenberg serves yet. Current state: the kit publish workflow checks only that the astro@ tag matches the package version. A server runs a theme only when it lists the theme's exact kit patch, and a fresh install picks up a new patch through its caret range. So a kit that reaches npm before any released server lists it breaks every theme rebuilt on it, and a pinned theme stops the server from starting. Today the order is kept by hand. Proposal: before npm publish, look through the released v* tags and stop unless one of them lists the kit version in internal/themehost/kit.go. Put the check in a Makefile target with a test, as make bump-kit has, and call it from the workflow. Trigger: the 0.15.1 kit release, where a server patch release had to ship first.

📅 Opened Oct 13, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

An import with an unknown field kind or page kind should explain the problem in the reader's language. Current state: with the admin in Spanish, open Field Groups, choose Import definitions and pick a file with a field of kind "sonnet". The dialog shows "content: invalid field kind" in English. A type with page kind "gallery" shows "content: invalid page kind" the same way. A Spanish message exists, but the server never sends the value and the allowed list it needs. An unknown status is bare too, though only a direct API call can send one. Proposal: field_kind_unknown, page_kind_unknown and status_unknown carry the refused value and the allowed values, as locale_unknown already does. A test checks each message fills. Trigger: a mutation test run showed these messages never fill.

📅 Opened Oct 12, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

A new field group should start on a real content type, or the form should say why it cannot yet. Current state: Open Field Groups while the content types are still loading, or after they fail to load. Press Add New Group, type a title and press Create. The form closes and a red notice says "The rule on content_type names nothing to match." The admin never saw a rule, so they cannot fix it. The form sent a content_type rule with an empty value, and the server refused it. Proposal: Keep Create disabled until the content types have loaded. If they fail to load, say so inside the form. Trigger: A mutation test run, confirmed by tests that stall or fail the content types read.

📅 Opened Oct 12, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

The import screen should always show and apply the definitions file the admin picked last. Current state: An admin opens Import definitions and picks a file. Before its plan shows, they pick a second file. The second plan shows first. Then the first file's plan replaces it. Clicking Apply sends the first file to the site. The admin thinks the second file landed. Proposal: Only the latest pick may set the plan and the file to apply. A late answer for an earlier pick is dropped. Moving the success and error handlers from useMutation onto read.mutate does this. A test makes the first of two picks answer late and checks the second plan shows and gets applied. Trigger: A mutation test run, confirmed by a probe test.

📅 Opened Oct 12, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Changes an author makes while a save runs should never vanish. Current state: Open a post, type an excerpt and click Save draft. While the editor still says Saving, add more words. When the save answers, the excerpt goes back to the saved words. Save draft greys out, so nothing looks unsaved. A parent page, slug, status or custom field changed meanwhile is lost too. Title and content edits survive. Proposal: useEditorBuffer should take a value from the save answer only when the author left it alone during the save. A slug the server changed still shows. Add tests that edit the excerpt and parent while a save is held. Trigger: a mutation test run, where removing the calls that copy back the excerpt and parent failed no test.

📅 Opened Oct 12, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute
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 gopherium/gophenberg

When evaluating whether to contribute to gopherium/gophenberg, 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 gopherium/gophenberg acknowledge new external contributions in approximately -. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 71.4% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to gopherium/gophenberg

01

Is gopherium/gophenberg welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

gopherium/gophenberg has a recorded first-timer success rate of 100.0%. 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 ~-. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 64.7 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 64.7 places gopherium/gophenberg in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for gopherium/gophenberg?

The external pull request merge rate is 71.4%. 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 gopherium/gophenberg?

Yes, gopherium/gophenberg currently has 24 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 gopherium/gophenberg 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.