maka-agent/maka-agent - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Maka — local-first AI desktop assistant

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

External PR Merge Rate: 90%

Response Time: 21h

First Timer Success: 68%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is maka-agent/maka-agent welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

maka-agent/maka-agent has a recorded first-timer success rate of 68.2%. 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 maka-agent/maka-agent respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 21.5 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 71.5 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 71.5 places maka-agent/maka-agent in the S tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for maka-agent/maka-agent?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for maka-agent/maka-agent is 90.1%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in maka-agent/maka-agent?

maka-agent/maka-agent does not currently have active "good first issue" tags indexed, but accepts external contributions through standard GitHub issue tracking.

maka-agent
maka-agent/maka-agentS•Elite1.4k
GitHub
Back to Explorer
maka-agent

maka-agent/maka-agent

1,381
InactiveS•Elite(72/100)TypeScript

Maka — local-first AI desktop assistant

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Welcoming Community Builder

Warmth Score
8.0/10
Patience Score
8.2/10
Nitpick Rate
45%

Collaborative maintainer environment in maka-agent/maka-agent. Reviews community pull requests with focus on project quality.

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
21 hours
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
90.1%
High acceptance rate for external PRs

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
68.2%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
28 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
90.1%
Merge Gauge
68.2%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe70/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Found by a repo-wide simplification audit; zero-consumer claims re-verified with git grep -aI. Four small independent cleanups bundled here: scripts/check-astryx-alignment.mjs (130 lines): no execution path — not in root package.json scripts, any of the 8 workflows, or scripts/ci-test-plan.mjs (which wires the sibling check-astryx-surface-inventory.mjs instead). Repo-wide references: the file itself and one doc line. Its astryx-allow: raw-button escape-hatch comment still spreads in sources. scripts/deepseek-live-cost-baseline.mjs (2960 lines): only reference is the npm alias cost:deepseek-baseline; zero invocations, zero workflow/doc references outside docs/archive/ (which declares itself non-current). Couples to Runtime/Storage internals and is the last user of the legacy compaction capability (see the History Compact V1 issue). packages/cli/src/skill-token.ts: a near-verbatim second authority for the /skill: token grammar duplicating packages/runtime/src/skill-invocation.ts. The

📅 Opened Aug 18, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Found by a repo-wide simplification audit. "Host-scoped change notification to attached connections" is implemented four times, kept in sync only by copy-paste: configuration-change-service.ts, project-catalog-change-service.ts, session-catalog-change-service.ts, scheduled-task-change-service.ts (39-44 lines each) — byte-for-byte identical Map<connectionId, sink>, attach/close lifecycle, and drop-sink-on-send-failure loop; only the frame shape differs. Composition creates four instances (execution-composition.ts:417 area); every connection separately attaches, stores, and closes four handles (connection-session.ts), plus four protocol files. Suggested consolidation: one host change feed owning connection registry and failure handling, with a subscription mask derived from operation grants; keep the four protocol frames, per-domain revisions, and payloads exactly as they are. Removes three connection tables, three attach/close lifecycles, and the duplicated connection-session fields

📅 Opened Aug 18, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Found by a repo-wide simplification audit; re-verified with git grep -aI. ClientSurface is a required handshake field that no Host code reads: Type/decode/requireSurface: packages/runtime-host/src/protocol/index.ts:88-95, :219, :402-414; threaded into ConnectionContext (operation-dispatcher.ts), assigned once in host-kernel.ts. Producers exist in all five clients (desktop, tui, run, activation, capability-provider), but git grep -aInw surface across src/server/ and src/transport/ shows zero production readers. Methodology note that likely explains its longevity: protocol/index.ts contains NUL bytes, so default rg/grep treat it as binary and silently skip it — absence checks must use git grep -aI. Disappearance surface: the enum, decode + requireSurface validation, the ConnectionContext field, and the five client-side pass-throughs. If client identity is wanted later for routing/telemetry, it can be reintroduced with an actual reader.

📅 Opened Aug 18, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Found by a repo-wide simplification audit; re-verified with git grep -aI. Independently confirmed by two separate audit passes. The V1 HistoryCompactBlock artifact compaction path and the Synthesis Cache are test-only: The sole production composer of AiSdkBackend (packages/runtime-host/src/server/execution-model-composition.ts, checkpoint wiring around :385) supplies only loadHistoryCompactCheckpoint / summarizeHistoryCompact / recordHistoryCompactCheckpoint; it never supplies loadHistoryCompact / writeHistoryCompact. All 9 repo-wide producers of writeHistoryCompact: are in packages/runtime/src/__tests__/ai-sdk-backend.test.ts. history-compact-artifacts.ts and synthesis-cache-artifacts.ts have no production callers (tests + package export only). MAKA_CONTEXT_SYNTHESIS_CACHE=on is exposed (context-budget-policy.ts) but there is no production persistence capability behind it — a toggle that cannot do anything. docs/architecture/llm-compaction-events-log-projection-draft.md still descr

📅 Opened Aug 18, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 100/100Contribute

Problem Six Desktop bridge + IPC endpoints have zero renderer, e2e, or test consumers, and one more is e2e-only: memory:propose/remember/listProposals/approveProposal/rejectProposal/archiveEntry/restoreEntry (7) — the Memory settings page manages the MEMORY.md document only; no proposals/entries CRUD UI exists artifacts:get — the artifact pane uses only {list, readText, readBinary, delete, subscribeChanges} skills:details — renderer uses list/catalog/sources/setEnabled/setPinned/delete/open/updateManaged, never details onboarding:clearMilestone — renderer uses getSnapshot/setMilestone only mcp:reconnect — no reconnect affordance exists git-review:mutate — the review panel only calls gitReview.read skills.createStarter — maintained only by e2e/skill-draft-lifecycle.spec.ts Each endpoint spans preload + bridge-contract + one main-process handler. They are dead API promises across three layers with no gate (knip covers reachability, not this kind of surface). Desired outco

📅 Opened Aug 15, 2026💬 0 comments
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 maka-agent/maka-agent

When evaluating whether to contribute to maka-agent/maka-agent, 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 maka-agent/maka-agent acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 21 hours. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 90.1% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to maka-agent/maka-agent

01

Is maka-agent/maka-agent welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

maka-agent/maka-agent has a recorded first-timer success rate of 68.2%. 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 ~21 hours. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 71.5 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 71.5 places maka-agent/maka-agent in the Elite tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for maka-agent/maka-agent?

The external pull request merge rate is 90.1%. 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 maka-agent/maka-agent?

maka-agent/maka-agent 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 maka-agent/maka-agent 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.