medic/cht-core - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

The CHT Core Framework makes it faster to build responsive, offline-first digital health apps that equip health workers to provide better care in their communities. It is a central resource of the Community Health Toolkit.

C-Rank Grade: B (Solid) - 52/100

External PR Merge Rate: 53%

Response Time: 5d

First Timer Success: 43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is medic/cht-core welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

medic/cht-core has a recorded first-timer success rate of 43.2%. 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 medic/cht-core respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 118.9 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 52.0 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 52.0 places medic/cht-core in the B tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for medic/cht-core?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for medic/cht-core is 53.0%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in medic/cht-core?

medic/cht-core currently has 7 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

medic
medic/cht-coreBSolid552
GitHub
Back to Explorer
medic

medic/cht-core

552
BSolid(52/100)JavaScript

The CHT Core Framework makes it faster to build responsive, offline-first digital health apps that equip health workers to provide better care in their communities. It is a central resource of the Community Health Toolkit.

Compare
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Strict Quality Architect

Warmth Score
7.1/10
Patience Score
7.5/10
Nitpick Rate
37%

Balanced & professional review environment in medic/cht-core. Maintains strict focus on technical quality and test standards.

Top PR Submission Do's

  • Add unit tests with >80% coverage for modified code paths
  • Run repository linter and code formatters locally before pushing
  • Link relevant GitHub issue ID in PR description pre-flight checklist

Top PR Friction Pitfalls (Don'ts)

  • Do not submit unlinked PRs without referencing an existing issue
  • Do not mix refactoring and feature logic into a single commit
  • Do not ping maintainers repeatedly within 24 hours of opening
Response Velocity
4 days+
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
53.0%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
43.2%
Accepts new contributor PRs

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
34 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
53.0%
Merge Gauge
43.2%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe34/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Describe the issue When releasing a new version of cht-core, there is a series of manual steps the release engineer must perform to upgrade the demo instance. Besides just being more manual effort, these steps also require that the engineer has a working local environment setup for running things like kubectl and helm (things not normally required for CHT development). Also, the engineer has to have the proper access level for the demo-cht namespace on EKS (something unlikely to be granted to non-Medic engineers). Describe the improvement you'd like Unless I am missing something, we should be able to automate all of this via a new GitHub workflow that we can manually trigger against a specified tag. (Another option would be to do it as a new job in the build workflow that is triggered _for when upgrade completes`. The main challenge I see with that is we don't want to upgrade the demo instance for all tags, since that could cause downgrades when we publish new patches for older rele

📅 Opened Apr 17, 2026💬 5 comments
Quality: 40/100Contribute

Describe the bug Unable to hide individual form fields inside a repeat in the reports view. To Reproduce Steps to reproduce the behavior: Add a repeat to your app form Add some fields (questions) inside the repeat Add a column instance::tag and set it to hidden for some of the fields added in step 2 Convert and upload the app to CHT Submit a report using that form Check the report in the Reports tab All fields inside repeat are visible Expected behavior The fields inside repeat which have been tagged as hidden should not be visible. Screenshots Here is a sample XLSForm repeat survey: repeat.properties.json: { "title": [ { "locale": "en", "content": "Repeat" } ], "context": { "place": true, "person": true }, "icon": "icon-repeat", "hidden_fields": [ "hidden_props", "items.hidden_props" ] } After I fill the form, I can still see the fields that should have been hidden: Environment Instance: local Browser: Chrome Client platform: Wind

📅 Opened Apr 1, 2026💬 6 comments
Quality: 70/100Contribute

As an extension to this feature, we would like to see the uploaded image displayed on the client's profile and also be able to change the image in person-edit form.

📅 Opened Feb 24, 2026💬 12 comments
Quality: 55/100Contribute

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. Requested on the forum. Currently CHT Targets and UHC counts are collected and stored per user per Gregorian calendar month. It is possible to customize the day of the month that target collection begins/ends by setting the uhc.visit_count.month_start_date value in the settings. This allows for adjusting target collection to be based on the nth day of the month instead of the 1st, but this value is bound to the day of the Gregorian calendar month. In regions that use the Bikram Sambat calendar, reporting cycles may be tied to BS months and not Gregorian months. In this case we would want the Target/UHC counts to reset at the beginning of the BS month (or in a fixed interval of days from the beginning of the BS month). Describe the solution you'd like We should add configuration that would allow aligning the Target/UHC counts to reset at the beginning of the BS month instead of the Gregorian calendar month. @bhishankc a key

📅 Opened Feb 19, 2026💬 11 comments
Quality: 70/100Contribute

Add the constant in DOC_TYPES Good first issue This ticket has the Good first issue label! This means it's been especially curated by other CHT contributors to be easy to work on for first time contributors per the docs. To succeed on this ticket, please follow the detailed steps in the parent ticket. This is largely a search and replace effort, but it's a great way to get introduced to working in GitHub, opening PRs and learning the basics of CHT Core dev setup.

📅 Opened Jan 6, 2026💬 9 comments
Quality: 70/100Contribute
Looking for more JavaScript beginner tasks?Explore JavaScript 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 medic/cht-core

When evaluating whether to contribute to medic/cht-core, 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 medic/cht-core acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 4 days+. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 53.0% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to medic/cht-core

01

Is medic/cht-core welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

medic/cht-core has a recorded first-timer success rate of 43.2%. 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 ~4 days+. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 52.0 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 52.0 places medic/cht-core in the Solid tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for medic/cht-core?

The external pull request merge rate is 53.0%. 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 medic/cht-core?

Yes, medic/cht-core currently has 7 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 medic/cht-core 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.