semantica-agi/semantica - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

Graph-Native Infrastructure for Context and Accountable AI Systems

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 67/100

External PR Merge Rate: 65%

Response Time: 11h

First Timer Success: 35%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is semantica-agi/semantica welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

semantica-agi/semantica has a recorded first-timer success rate of 34.6%. 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 semantica-agi/semantica respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 11.5 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 66.8 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 66.8 places semantica-agi/semantica in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for semantica-agi/semantica?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for semantica-agi/semantica is 65.4%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in semantica-agi/semantica?

semantica-agi/semantica currently has 28 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

semantica-agi
semantica-agi/semanticaA•Welcoming13.9k
GitHub
Back to Explorer
semantica-agi

semantica-agi/semantica

13,915
Active (30d)A•Welcoming(67/100)Python

Graph-Native Infrastructure for Context and Accountable AI Systems

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Empathetic Technical Mentor

Warmth Score
8.4/10
Patience Score
8.6/10
Nitpick Rate
25%

Highly welcoming maintainers in semantica-agi/semantica. 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
11 hours
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
65.4%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
34.6%
Accepts new contributor PRs

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
69 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
65.4%
Merge Gauge
34.6%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe58/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (5)

View on GitHub

Bug Description semantica temporal history renders its timestamps through two different code paths depending on the output mode. --format json emits ISO 8601 (2025-01-01T00:00:00Z), but the default output (--format table) still falls through _pprint, whose json.dumps(..., default=str) produces the space-separated str(datetime) form. The same command therefore reports two different timestamp formats, and its default output disagrees with semantica temporal distance, which is ISO in both modes. This is the one residual left after #1987, which fixed the --format json path only. Steps to Reproduce Have a memory-backend graph with any temporal fact (e.g. a node with valid_from / recorded_at). Run semantica temporal history <entity_id> --format json and semantica temporal history <entity_id> (default is --format table). Compare the timestamp fields. Expected Behavior Both output modes should render the same timestamp format, and it should be ISO 8601, consistent with temporal distance. Act

📅 Opened Oct 11, 2026💬 2 comments
Quality: 80/100Contribute

Problem After #1870, tests/test_embedding_providers.py::TestEmbeddingProviders::test_embedding_generator_config runs on the Linux CI runner. It was previously deselected everywhere. It loads BAAI/bge-small-en-v1.5 through fastembed at test time. The model isn't cached or hash-pinned, and the rest of the job installs dependencies with --require-hashes. If the hub is down or rate-limited, the backend falls back and the test fails with 128 != 384, which turns the build red for an unrelated reason. Suggested fix Either: cache the fastembed / Hugging Face model directory with actions/cache in the full-suite step, or mark the test integration (or skip it when offline) so a hub outage can't fail the build. Context Raised during review of #1870. Not a blocker for that PR.

📅 Opened Oct 10, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Summary Follow-ups found during the final review of #1919 (fix for #1257). None of these blocked that PR. They are grouped here so they can be fixed in one small PR. 1. Legacy server has the same WebSocket 403 (bug) semantica/server.py:97-111 only allows the 5173 Vite origins, but the server listens on port 8000. A browser opened on :8000 gets the same WebSocket 403 that #1257 describes for the Explorer. Fix: apply the same default as semantica/explorer/app.py: allow localhost:<port> and 127.0.0.1:<port> unless ALLOWED_ORIGINS or EXPLORER_CORS_ORIGINS is set explicitly. Add a regression test. 2. Test depends on the developer's shell (tests) The test at tests/explorer/test_explorer_auth.py:230 uses the shared client fixture, which builds the app from the process environment. It fails if the shell exports ALLOWED_ORIGINS. Fix: unset ALLOWED_ORIGINS and EXPLORER_CORS_ORIGINS in the fixture with monkeypatch.delenv, or build the app inside the test. 3. Lint regressions in tests/explorer/tes

📅 Opened Oct 9, 2026💬 5 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Follow-ups from the independent review of #1940 (APPROVE WITH NITS, no blockers) and the Verify Action Pins cleanup (#1899 and the setup-node/upload-artifact pin bump). None of these block anything today. A. Report Scheduled Failure step (.github/workflows/security-scan.yml) Label creation swallows all errors. The createLabel catch (~line 610) ignores every failure, not just 422 (label already exists). Check e.status === 422, and log or rethrow anything else. The label doesn't exist yet, so the first real failure goes through this path. Move reporting into a separate job (needs: security-scan, if: failure() && github.event_name == 'schedule', permissions issues: write + actions: read, reading the uploaded report artifact). Today issues: write (line ~89) also applies to pull_request runs of the scan job, which install PR-controlled dependencies. Forks get a read-only token, so the exposure is small, but a separate job removes it. Auto-close the tracking issue on recovery. Today an o

📅 Opened Oct 8, 2026💬 3 comments
Quality: 90/100Contribute

Bug Description ArrowExporter.export() loses relationship endpoints when it is called directly with records that name them the way the server backends do (start_node_id/end_node_id, or start_id/end_id). The file is written without an error, but neither endpoint is in it. #1719 moved the endpoint names into semantica/export/endpoint_names.py and taught the export router and ParquetExporter to use them. Its notes left the direct Arrow path for a separate change: ArrowExporter._write_arrow still has its own check that only knows source*/target* (semantica/export/arrow_exporter.py:674-684). Steps to Reproduce from pathlib import Path from tempfile import TemporaryDirectory import pyarrow.ipc as ipc import pyarrow.parquet as pq from semantica.export import ArrowExporter, ParquetExporter edges = [{"id": "r1", "start_node_id": "alice", "end_node_id": "acme", "type": "WORKS_AT"}] with TemporaryDirectory() as tmp: arrow = ArrowExporter().export({"edges": edges}, Path(tmp) / "graph.arrow"

📅 Opened Oct 8, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 40/100Contribute
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 semantica-agi/semantica

When evaluating whether to contribute to semantica-agi/semantica, 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 semantica-agi/semantica acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 11 hours. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 65.4% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to semantica-agi/semantica

01

Is semantica-agi/semantica welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

semantica-agi/semantica has a recorded first-timer success rate of 34.6%. 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 ~11 hours. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 66.8 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 66.8 places semantica-agi/semantica in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for semantica-agi/semantica?

The external pull request merge rate is 65.4%. 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 semantica-agi/semantica?

Yes, semantica-agi/semantica currently has 28 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 semantica-agi/semantica 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.