rtk-ai/rtk - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

CLI proxy that reduces LLM token consumption by 60-90% on common dev commands. Single Rust binary, zero dependencies

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 64/100

External PR Merge Rate: 12%

Response Time: -

First Timer Success: 8%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is rtk-ai/rtk welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

rtk-ai/rtk has a recorded first-timer success rate of 7.7%. Repositories ranked A 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 rtk-ai/rtk respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 0.0 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 64.4 C-Rank™ score (A 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 64.4 places rtk-ai/rtk in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for rtk-ai/rtk?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for rtk-ai/rtk is 12.2%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in rtk-ai/rtk?

rtk-ai/rtk currently has 524 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

rtk-ai
rtk-ai/rtkA•Welcoming83.2k
GitHub
Back to Explorer
rtk-ai

rtk-ai/rtk

83,217
Active (30d)A•Welcoming(64/100)Rust

CLI proxy that reduces LLM token consumption by 60-90% on common dev commands. Single Rust binary, zero dependencies

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Constructive Code Reviewer

Warmth Score
7.4/10
Patience Score
7.8/10
Nitpick Rate
33%

Balanced & professional review environment in rtk-ai/rtk. 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
-
No reviewer activity recorded

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
12.2%
Selective PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
7.7%
Accepts new contributor PRs

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
169 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
12.2%
Merge Gauge
7.7%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe7/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

rtk err cargo build --help prints 707 B of cargo's 3135 B help (the lines the error filter keeps), and rtk test cargo test --help prints the last 5 lines of 3421 B. rtk summary <cmd> --help summarises the page. Same on develop 311ebcb. #4348 hands --help/-h/--version to the tool on wrapper subcommands, and leaves these three alone on purpose: they run a command the caller names, whose -h may not be a help request (rtk err du -h, rtk summary df -h), so a guard on the inner argv has to know the inner tool's spelling, as runner::help_spelling does for wrappers.

📅 Opened Oct 13, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Summary #4530 closed the #4126 regression (a denied command inside a shell wrapper the rewrite reaches now returns Defer) with the smallest change that is never worse than master. Three things were left on purpose. All rows below were verified on release binaries of master 0.51.0, develop 311ebcbf and #4530 with allow Bash(*) + deny Bash(git push:*) (rtk rewrite exit: 0 allow · 1 passthrough · 2 deny · 3 ask). 1. A rewritten prefixed script is auto-allowed on the outer rule Command (allow Bash(env:*)) master develop #4530 env bash -c 'git status' → env bash -c 'rtk git status' 1 0 0 env bash -c 'git -C . push' → env bash -c 'rtk git -C . push' 1 0 0 env bash -c 'git reset --hard' with ask git reset:* 1 0 0 The host's outcome is unchanged (its own env:* rule allows the raw line), but RTK answers "allow" for a script it rewrote and only partly understood: the inner match reads past the prefixes the rewrite peels, not past a program's own options, and ask rules inside

📅 Opened Oct 13, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 75/100Contribute

ci.yml runs semgrep scan --baseline-commit ${{ github.event.pull_request.base.sha }}. On #3613, base.sha was 29f9bb716 (where the branch was cut) while develop was at 311ebcbfd. The job scans the merge result, so everything develop gained in between counts as new. It failed with one blocking finding, filesystem-deletion at src/hooks/init/opencode.rs:257, in a develop test, on a PR that touches build.rs, ci.yml and one new test file. Reproduced locally on the merge tree: --baseline-commit 29f9bb716 gives 1 finding, --baseline-commit 311ebcbfd gives 0. After develop was merged into the branch, base.sha became 311ebcbfd and the job passed (run 38322254442). Effect: any PR behind develop fails this job on findings it did not introduce, until its author merges develop. Separate from #3761, which covers an empty baseline on other triggers. Possible baselines, not tried on a runner: the first parent of the merge ref (the base tip when the merge ref was built), or origin/<base_ref> after a fet

📅 Opened Oct 12, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Summary The official Hermes plugin (hooks/hermes/__init__.py, installed via rtk init --agent hermes) calls subprocess.run(["rtk", "rewrite", command], capture_output=True, text=True) without an explicit encoding=. On Windows, text=True decodes the child's output with the ANSI code page (cp936/GBK on zh-CN systems) — but rtk rewrite emits UTF-8. Any command containing characters that don't round-trip through GBK (non-ASCII paths, curly quotes, emoji — i.e. most real-world commands on CJK Windows) makes the reader thread throw UnicodeDecodeError, so result.stdout is left as None, and the plugin then crashes on result.stdout.strip(). The exception is swallowed by the plugin's wide except, so the command fails open and runs unrewritten. No data is corrupted, but the plugin silently loses 100% of its rewriting benefit for those commands, plus emits one stderr noise line per call. The user sees nothing except "rtk gain never goes up". Environment rtk 0.50.0 (winget rtk-ai.rtk); same def

📅 Opened Oct 12, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 75/100Contribute

Three small refinements to disown_pair / opens_disown_pair (src/discover/lexer.rs), added in #4126 to stop RTK re-spelling the pairs an ampersand opens. The rule itself is correct and verified against real zsh 5.9.2 and fish 4.9.1; these are leftovers that cost nothing today but will mislead the next reader. 1. The TokenKind::Arg arm is unreachable let pairs = match &token.kind { TokenKind::Pipe(_) => true, TokenKind::Shellism => token.value == "!", TokenKind::Arg => token.value.starts_with('!'), // <- never fires _ => false, }; An unquoted ! is unconditionally flushed into its own Shellism token by the '*' | '?' | '' | '(' | ')' | '{' | '}' | '!'arm oftokenize_inner, and every other producer of an Argprepends something: the quote branch keeps the opening delimiter invalue (&'!x'→Arg("'!x'")), the escape branch keeps the backslash (&!x→Arg("\!x")), and the $branch yields$name. So no Argvalue can begin with!`. Evidence: removing the arm changes the verdict on 0 of

📅 Opened Oct 11, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 100/100Contribute
Looking for more Rust beginner tasks?Explore Rust 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 rtk-ai/rtk

When evaluating whether to contribute to rtk-ai/rtk, 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 rtk-ai/rtk acknowledge new external contributions in approximately -. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 12.2% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to rtk-ai/rtk

01

Is rtk-ai/rtk welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

rtk-ai/rtk has a recorded first-timer success rate of 7.7%. Repositories ranked Welcoming 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 ~-. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 64.4 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 64.4 places rtk-ai/rtk in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for rtk-ai/rtk?

The external pull request merge rate is 12.2%. 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 rtk-ai/rtk?

Yes, rtk-ai/rtk currently has 524 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 rtk-ai/rtk 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.