pulseaiclub/phi - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

a coding agent, rpc plugin, sub-agents, hashline edits, and mcp

C-Rank Grade: S (Elite) - 71/100

External PR Merge Rate: 86%

Response Time: 21h

First Timer Success: 67%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is pulseaiclub/phi welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

pulseaiclub/phi has a recorded first-timer success rate of 66.7%. 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 pulseaiclub/phi 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 71.4 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 71.4 places pulseaiclub/phi in the S tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for pulseaiclub/phi?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for pulseaiclub/phi is 85.7%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in pulseaiclub/phi?

pulseaiclub/phi currently has 1 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

pulseaiclub
pulseaiclub/phiS•Elite521
GitHub
Back to Explorer
pulseaiclub

pulseaiclub/phi

521
Active (30d)S•Elite(71/100)Go

a coding agent, rpc plugin, sub-agents, hashline edits, and mcp

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 pulseaiclub/phi 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
21 hours
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
85.7%
High acceptance rate for external PRs

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
66.7%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
3 core
Small core review team
Diagnostic Health HUD
85.7%
Merge Gauge
66.7%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe68/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

internal/tools/bashtool/bash.go (101 lines) is 0.0% covered while the package sits at 70.2%: BashTool(), bashDetail, and runBash have never been executed. The existing tests only exercise helpers (ExecShell, formatBashOutput, newCappedBuffer, shell discovery), so the entry point the agent hits most often — plus its timeout clamping and error suffixes — is unpinned. It is a self-contained handler: typed bashInput in, tooldef.Result out, IO only through the already-tested buildShellCommand path. Add internal/tools/bashtool/bash_test.go covering: • runBash — empty and whitespace-only command → error empty command • success — printf hi → Content "hi", Detail "printf hi" • non-zero exit — exit 3 → "(no output)\n(exit error: exit status 3)" • empty output — true → "(no output)" • stderr — printf err >&2 → Content "err" • timeout — {"command":"sleep 2","timeout":1} → "(no output)\n(command canceled or timed out)", and the call returns in ~1s (assert ela

📅 Opened Oct 7, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

internal/tools/greptool/grep.go (529 lines) sits at 70.1% but the output-size guards are barely touched: truncateHead 9.5%, exitCode 0.0%, truncateLine 66.7%, formatBytes 66.7%. These decide what the model actually receives when a search matches a lot — the difference between a usable result and a tool message that blows the context. Pure string/int functions, no IO. Add internal/tools/greptool/truncate_test.go covering: • truncateHead — content shorter than max passes through with Truncated == false; content exactly max is not truncated; first line longer than max → {Content: "", Truncated: true}; a multi-line body truncates on a line boundary and never exceeds max (count the newline byte); single line • truncateLine — maxChars <= 0 falls back to grepMaxLineRunes; short line returns (line, false); long line returns prefix + grepTruncatedSuffix with true; CJK counted by rune, not byte • formatBytes — 0 → "0B", 1023 → "1023B", 1024 → "1KB", non-multiples floor •

📅 Opened Oct 7, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

internal/tools/mcptool/mcp.go sits at 30.8%: listTool 33.3%, inspectTool 14.3%, callTool 14.3%. These three are the only MCP surface the model ever sees, and their rule is that schemas never enter the model context and errors go back verbatim. The success path needs a fake stdio MCP server (not for a first issue) but the schema and failure paths need no server at all: *mcp.Pool with a config map whose server name does not match fails before any connection. Add cases to internal/tools/mcptool/mcp_test.go covering: • schemas — mcp_inspect and mcp_call require exactly [server, tool], mcp_list requires [server]; all three Params.Type == "object" • DetailFromArgs — mcp_inspect/mcp_call render server/tool, mcp_list renders the server • error pass-through — pool := mcp.NewPool(map[string]mcp.ServerConfig{}), then mcp_inspect and mcp_call with server nope → error containing unknown mcp server "nope", Result zero-valued • mcp_list with an empty server → mcp_list: server is req

📅 Opened Oct 7, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute

internal/mcp is at 43.7%. The transport layers (stdio.go is entirely uncovered, pool.go is uncovered except LoadPool) need a fake MCP server and are tracked separately. This issue is the easy half: the pure helpers, which need no server and no network. Add cases (a single helpers_test.go in package mcp is fine) for: truncate (util.go:5) and sanitizeName (util.go:12) — sanitizeName("a/b c") → "a_b_c", sanitizeName("") → "server", boundaries at the max length. (jsonRPCError) Error() (rpc.go:16) — nil receiver and a {-32601, "x"} value. extractToolContent (rpc.go:63) — empty raw → ""; unparseable raw echoed back; only image parts → raw echoed; isError: true text → "error: hello". FormatCallResult (compact.go:109) — maxChars <= 0 falls back to 32000; a short string passes through; an over-long string gets the truncation suffix. LogDir (config.go:46) and CmdLine (config.go:151). Use internal/mcp/rpc_parse_test.go as the template: it is package mcp (internal) and feeds ca

📅 Opened Oct 6, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 75/100Contribute

internal/components/layout has no test file and 0.0% statement coverage, yet it is imported by 43 call sites (chat, footer, toast, overlays, composer, configui) for box borders and width-safe truncation. It is a pure package: every function takes a *components.Surface or a string and returns painted pixels / a string. No terminal, no goroutines, no IO. Add internal/components/layout/layout_test.go covering: borderGlyphs — BorderSquare yields ┌┐└┘, BorderRounded yields ╭╮╰╯ DrawRoundedBorder — corners and edges land at the expected buffer offsets on a components.NewSurface(10, 4, nil); w < 2 || h < 2 is a no-op DrawRoundedBorder — a left label wider than the box is truncated and the right label survives TruncateToWidth — ASCII ("abcdef", 3 → "abc"), grapheme-safe non-ASCII ("héllo", 3), max <= 0 → "", and a wide-CJK case BorderLabel.Visible, borderLabelWidth Copy the style from internal/components/chat/chat_test.go (components.NewSurface(w, h, nil), the ro

📅 Opened Oct 6, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 50/100Contribute
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 pulseaiclub/phi

When evaluating whether to contribute to pulseaiclub/phi, 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 pulseaiclub/phi acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 21 hours. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 85.7% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to pulseaiclub/phi

01

Is pulseaiclub/phi welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

pulseaiclub/phi has a recorded first-timer success rate of 66.7%. 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 71.4 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 71.4 places pulseaiclub/phi in the Elite tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for pulseaiclub/phi?

The external pull request merge rate is 85.7%. 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 pulseaiclub/phi?

Yes, pulseaiclub/phi currently has 1 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 pulseaiclub/phi 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.