kriasoft/react-starter-kit - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Modern React starter kit with Bun, TypeScript, Tailwind CSS, tRPC, Stripe, and Cloudflare Workers. Production-ready monorepo for building fast web apps.

C-Rank Grade: B (Solid) - 57/100

External PR Merge Rate: 83%

Response Time: 2d

First Timer Success: 100%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is kriasoft/react-starter-kit welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

kriasoft/react-starter-kit has a recorded first-timer success rate of 100.0%. Repositories ranked B 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 kriasoft/react-starter-kit respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 49.6 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 56.6 C-Rank™ score (B 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 56.6 places kriasoft/react-starter-kit in the B tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for kriasoft/react-starter-kit?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for kriasoft/react-starter-kit is 83.3%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in kriasoft/react-starter-kit?

kriasoft/react-starter-kit does not currently have active "good first issue" tags indexed, but accepts external contributions through standard GitHub issue tracking.

kriasoft
kriasoft/react-starter-kitBSolid23.7k
GitHub
Back to Explorer
kriasoft

kriasoft/react-starter-kit

23,665
BSolid(57/100)TypeScript

Modern React starter kit with Bun, TypeScript, Tailwind CSS, tRPC, Stripe, and Cloudflare Workers. Production-ready monorepo for building fast web apps.

Compare
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Principal infrastructure/security engineer reviewing own project. Treats every shell interpolation as a potential attack surface, every incomplete generator as a false-negative risk, and every docs drift as a future reviewer trap. Not hostile, but uncompromising on correctness.

Warmth Score
5.5/10
Patience Score
6.0/10
Nitpick Rate
25%

Security-obsessed senior engineer who audits infrastructure changes with exploit-level precision and demands documentation-code parity

What Contributors Actually Say

The visible corpus is narrow: one reviewer across PR and issue threads, with identical text duplicated between PR reviews and issue comments. The reviewer's voice is technical, imperative, and evidence-dense. Each fix is named ('Fixed - ...'), the vulnerability is explained with exploit mechanics ('A branch name containing shell metacharacters can execute commands in this credential-bearing job before the step exits'), and the remediation is precise ('Use a static message or pass the value through env'). There is no small talk, no praise, no hedging. This is a maintainer who treats review as audit, not conversation.

Hidden Friction Signals

Three friction patterns emerge. First, documentation drift is treated as a first-class defect: the reviewer explicitly flags `docs/security/checklist.md:78` for still pointing to the old command, signaling that stale docs are as blocking as broken code. Second, generators that produce partial or ambient-dependent output are rejected as verification hazards, not just inconvenience. Third, the reviewer requires that verification tooling be deterministic and complete enough to support comparison, implying that contributors cannot paper over gaps with manual review. The duplication of the same text in both PR reviews and issue comments suggests either a cross-posting habit or a single authoritative review being mirrored, not a broad community signal.

Unwritten Rules

  • 1) Infrastructure changes are held to exploit-patch standards, not code-style standards.
  • 2) A generator that cannot produce comparable output is worse than no generator, because it creates a false sense of verification.
  • 3) Documentation and CI scripts must be updated atomically; a check that exists only in code or only in docs is incomplete.
  • 4) Security review is not a separate phase, it is the default lens for any change touching CI, shell, or credentials.
  • 5) The canonical check command is singular by design; parallel paths (terraform fmt vs bun infra:check) are consolidated, not tolerated.

Top PR Submission Do's

  • Pass all dynamic values (especially `github.ref_name`) through `env` in GitHub Actions, never interpolate directly into shell scripts
  • Ensure generators produce complete, comparable output (include defaults, onDelete, all enabled plugins) so downstream verification is sound
  • Update all documentation references when consolidating commands; stale docs that point to old checks are treated as defects

Top PR Friction Pitfalls (Don'ts)

  • Do not interpolate attacker-controlled strings (branch names, PR titles) directly into credential-bearing shell steps
  • Do not ship generators that silently disable plugins or omit schema fields based on ambient shell state
  • Do not leave parallel verification paths; one canonical check must be the source of truth everywhere
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
83.3%
High acceptance rate for external PRs

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
1 core
Single maintainer review bottleneck
Diagnostic Health HUD
83.3%
Merge Gauge
100.0%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe63/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (0)

View on GitHub

No cached good first issues currently tracked for kriasoft/react-starter-kit.

View all good first issues directly on GitHub

Looking for more TypeScript beginner tasks?Explore TypeScript 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 kriasoft/react-starter-kit

When evaluating whether to contribute to kriasoft/react-starter-kit, 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 kriasoft/react-starter-kit acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 2 days+. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 83.3% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to kriasoft/react-starter-kit

01

Is kriasoft/react-starter-kit welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

kriasoft/react-starter-kit has a recorded first-timer success rate of 100.0%. Repositories ranked Solid 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 56.6 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 56.6 places kriasoft/react-starter-kit in the Solid tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for kriasoft/react-starter-kit?

The external pull request merge rate is 83.3%. 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 kriasoft/react-starter-kit?

kriasoft/react-starter-kit does not have open beginner labels indexed currently, but external PRs for bugs and documentation improvements are evaluated via normal issue triage.

GetMerged C-Rank™ Indexing Standard

All metrics displayed for kriasoft/react-starter-kit 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.