Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO)
C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 64/100
External PR Merge Rate: 76%
Response Time: 1d
First Timer Success: 80%
ontologyportal/sumo has a recorded first-timer success rate of 80.0%. Repositories ranked A typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.
Maintainers in ontologyportal/sumo respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 33.1 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.
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 63.8 places ontologyportal/sumo in the A tier.
The external contributor pull request merge rate for ontologyportal/sumo is 76.1%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.
ontologyportal/sumo currently has 2 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".
Active maintainer team in ontologyportal/sumo welcoming community pull requests and bug fixes.
Average Response Latency
Tracks hours until a maintainer leaves a review, comment, or PR response.
External Acceptance Rate
Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.
First PR Conversion
Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.
Show contributors that your repository actively reviews and merges external pull requests.
[](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/ontologyportal/sumo?utm_source=github&utm_medium=badge)
Historical health & responsiveness evolution
External PR acceptance
First PR success rate
50% receive response in
90% receive response in
Maintainer review activity heatmap & prime window prediction
Calculating local time...
Calculating local time...
Detected: UTC
Maintainers are most responsive around 18:00 UTC (18:00 UTC in your timezone). Recommended submission window is Tuesday - Thursday from 18:00 to 22:00 UTC (18:00 - 22:00 UTC local).
Maintainer Strategy: Maintainer Sweet Spot: PRs under 150 lines merge in ~21 hours (95% approval). Large PRs (>500 lines) take ~159 hours (34% approval). Keep your diff compact for rapid review.
When correcting disjointness I came across the term FrequencyMeasure. FrequencyMeasure was seemingly defined twice: Merge.kif (subclass FrequencyMeasure TimeDependentQuantity) (documentation FrequencyMeasure EnglishWrittenLanguage "A &%subclass of &%TimeDependentQuantity, instances of which are measures of the frequency with which some &%Process occurs.") and HouseholdApplicances.kif (subclass FrequencyMeasure ConstantQuantity) (documentation FrequencyMeasure EnglishWrittenLanguage "Instances of &%FrequencyMeasure are measures of frequency stated in units of &%UnitOfFrequency.")` While this is not technically an issue if parents are compatible, I feel uncomfortable having taxonomy definitions of a term within different files. Perhaps there are some circumstances where this might be beneficial, but I could see this being an issue while trying to package subontologies. I've thought of 3 possible solutions: We could introduce a termDefinition wrapper statement to increase clarity dur
Electricity is currently modeled as a substance. Its documentation states: (documentation Electricity EnglishWrittenLanguage "While electricity is typically thought of as just a difference in electrical potential, one way of modeling electricity is as a substance that can be moved from one point to another or consumed. One could make the claim that subatomic physics also supports the classification as a substance since electrons are objects.") This modeling choice is understandable as a useful abstraction. Treating electricity as a substance allows it to be represented as a resource that can be transferred, stored, or consumed without requiring the ontology to model the underlying electrical and subatomic processes in detail. For example, this may make reasoning about battery capacity or energy consumption substantially simpler. However, this raises a broader modeling question: Should SUMO prioritize physically accurate and granular representations, or abstractions that are more conv
Rate what actually matters after opening a pull request here.
Rate your first-hand PR experience (review speed, maintainer responsiveness, and onboarding ease) to help other contributors.
When evaluating whether to contribute to ontologyportal/sumo, 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 ontologyportal/sumo acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 1 days+. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 76.1% were successfully merged into the primary branch.
ontologyportal/sumo has a recorded first-timer success rate of 80.0%. Repositories ranked Welcoming typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.
The initial maintainer response time averages ~1 days+. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.
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 63.8 places ontologyportal/sumo in the Welcoming tier.
The external pull request merge rate is 76.1%. GetMerged isolates non-core community contributions so external developers get an accurate benchmark of PR acceptance probability.
Yes, ontologyportal/sumo currently has 2 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels. You can inspect these directly from the repository issues tab.
All metrics displayed for ontologyportal/sumo 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.