pymc-labs/pathmc - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Structural causal models with Bayesian estimation and interventional simulation via a concise DSL.

C-Rank Grade: S (Elite) - 80/100

External PR Merge Rate: 91%

Response Time: 1h

First Timer Success: 67%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is pymc-labs/pathmc welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

pymc-labs/pathmc 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 pymc-labs/pathmc respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 1.0 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 79.6 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 79.6 places pymc-labs/pathmc in the S tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for pymc-labs/pathmc?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for pymc-labs/pathmc is 91.2%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in pymc-labs/pathmc?

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

pymc-labs
pymc-labs/pathmcS•Elite108
GitHub
Back to Explorer
pymc-labs

pymc-labs/pathmc

108
Active (30d)S•Elite(80/100)Python

Structural causal models with Bayesian estimation and interventional simulation via a concise DSL.

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Welcoming Community Builder

Warmth Score
9.1/10
Patience Score
8.8/10
Nitpick Rate
40%

Highly welcoming maintainers in pymc-labs/pathmc. Prompt code reviews with positive guidance for new contributors.

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
1 hours
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
91.2%
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
8 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
91.2%
Merge Gauge
66.7%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe86/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (2)

View on GitHub

Summary A small grab-bag of low-risk polish items for the falsification feature (good first issue). 1. FalsificationResult.plot(bins=...) non-integer validation pathmc/falsify.py:307 rejects bins < 1 but accepts a non-integer like 2.5, which then fails later inside matplotlib with a less clear error. The type hint already says int | None. if bins is not None and (not isinstance(bins, int) or bins < 1): raise ValueError(f"bins must be a positive integer or None, got {bins!r}.") 2. A few explicit edge-case tests worth locking in The suite (tests/test_falsify.py) is thorough, but these explicit cases are nice to pin: A 3-variable residual-covariance block (X ~~ Y, Y ~~ Z) is rejected (currently covered only transitively by the residual_blocks check). plot(bins=2.5) raises a clear ValueError (after fix #1). Acceptance criteria plot(bins=2.5) raises a clear pathmc ValueError. plot(bins=0), bins=-1 still raise (unchanged); bins=None, bins=10 still work. New tests added under tests/

📅 Opened Jun 15, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 80/100Contribute

Context Issue #4 introduced stochastic latent nodes and sparse measurement equations. These models use pytensor.scan for AR(1) dynamics and PyMC's masked array imputation for sparse observations. The default PyMC NUTS sampler works but is slow — the scan graph is expensive to compile and evaluate. Options to explore 1. nutpie JAX backend (quick win) The numba backend fails because masked array imputation creates unnamed shared variables (ValueError: Shared variables must have unique names: None). The JAX backend compiles the graph differently and may bypass this. JAX is also documented as giving substantial speedups for scan-heavy models. model.sample( ..., nuts_sampler="nutpie", nuts_sampler_kwargs={"backend": "jax"}, ) 2. NumPyro sampler nuts_sampler="numpyro" compiles the entire model to JAX via NumPyro's NUTS. Well-established fast path, especially with GPU. Needs testing with masked array imputation. 3. pymc-extras statespace with Kalman filter pymc_extras.statespace

📅 Opened Mar 7, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 70/100Contribute
Looking for more Python beginner tasks?Explore Python 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 pymc-labs/pathmc

When evaluating whether to contribute to pymc-labs/pathmc, 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 pymc-labs/pathmc acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 1 hours. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 91.2% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to pymc-labs/pathmc

01

Is pymc-labs/pathmc welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

pymc-labs/pathmc 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 ~1 hours. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 79.6 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 79.6 places pymc-labs/pathmc in the Elite tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for pymc-labs/pathmc?

The external pull request merge rate is 91.2%. 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 pymc-labs/pathmc?

Yes, pymc-labs/pathmc 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 pymc-labs/pathmc 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.