warpfront/hipfire - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

RDNA-native LLM inference engine in Rust.

C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 62/100

External PR Merge Rate: 68%

Response Time: -

First Timer Success: 75%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is warpfront/hipfire welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

warpfront/hipfire has a recorded first-timer success rate of 75.0%. 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 warpfront/hipfire 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 61.9 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 61.9 places warpfront/hipfire in the A tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for warpfront/hipfire?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for warpfront/hipfire is 68.0%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in warpfront/hipfire?

warpfront/hipfire does not currently have active "good first issue" tags indexed, but accepts external contributions through standard GitHub issue tracking.

warpfront
warpfront/hipfireA•Welcoming666
GitHub
Back to Explorer
warpfront

warpfront/hipfire

666
InactiveA•Welcoming(62/100)Rust

RDNA-native LLM inference engine in Rust.

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Strict Quality Architect

Warmth Score
6.8/10
Patience Score
7.4/10
Nitpick Rate
40%

Rigorous architecture standards (61% critical review signals). Ensure PRs strictly follow guidelines before requesting review in warpfront/hipfire.

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
68.0%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
75.0%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
13 core
Highly collaborative maintainer core
Diagnostic Health HUD
68.0%
Merge Gauge
75.0%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe50/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (4)

View on GitHub

Tracks the two gates blocking Lloyd-MQ3 (qt=20) from replacing uniform MQ3 as the 3-bit default. PR #115 has the implementation; this issue is the punch list to clear it. Empirical state (from PR #115) 9B Qwen3.5 Lloyd-MQ3 wikitext2-test ppl = 18.52 vs uniform MQ3 = 42.03 — 2.27× quality reduction for +7.7% bandwidth (112 B/group vs 104). Closest hipfire has gotten any sub-4-bit to MQ4 (10.34 → 1.79× gap, vs uniform MQ3's 4.07×). Same lift across all sizes: 0.8B: 301 → 155 (1.94×) 4B: 45 → 22.6 (2.01×) 9B: 42 → 18.5 (2.27×) Decode took a 3.2× hit on 9B (141 → 44 tok/s) from the 8-way switch in gemv_mq3g256_lloyd.hip — the codebook lookup compiles to a longer dependency chain than uniform's scale*q + zero. Gate 1 — K4-unroll kernel (~1 day kernel work) Goal: 9B Lloyd-MQ3 decode ≥120 tok/s on gfx1100. Approach: mirror gemv_hfq3g256.gfx1100.hip's 4-accumulator K4-unroll pattern. Two ideas, either or both: LDS-resident codebook table — load 8 fp16 (16 B/wa

📅 Opened May 1, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 70/100Contribute

Reporter: @mikiadev in #79 — "in 7-10 attempts the last part of thinking 'I'm going to answer the user ' got infinitely looped" Reproduced: 7900 XTX, qwen3.6:35b-a3b.mq4 + DFlash draft, prompt "What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?", DFlash greedy (temp=0), max_tokens=600. Hit rate 2/5 runs hit a clear block-level attractor in the last 1/3 of `` (Tier-2 / Tier-3 in `coherence-gate-dflash.sh`). Matches @mikiadev's ~2/10 from real pi traffic. Example signature from one stuck run: ``` 6× "context—which is why many people joke about how meaningless the answer actually was without" ``` The phrase rotates as a closed loop; draft and target keep agreeing on it because it's "consistent with itself" — a textbook DFlash sidecar-drift attractor (cf. CASK m-fold + DFlash 2026-04-26 in `feedback_dflash_coherence_gate_mandatory.md`). Why A3B specifically Per `feedback_a3b_dflash_regression.md` the global TriAttention sidecar for A3B-3.5 caps at R̄≈0.36 and A3B-3.6 at R

📅 Opened Apr 28, 2026💬 8 comments
Quality: 80/100Contribute

Status: PRD scoped at docs/plans/sliding-window-fa.prd; branch feat/sliding-window-fa (commit 6c59950); implementation queued. Background Lucebox-Org/lucebox-hub merged PR #26 on 2026-04-26 — "feat(dflash): sliding window FA + two-phase cache". On RTX 3090 with Qwen3.6-27B at 60K context, decode jumps from 25 tok/s (full attention) to 89.7 tok/s (window=2048), 3.48× with 100% speculative acceptance at all window sizes. The 100% acceptance claim is structural, not probabilistic: when target and draft both apply the same windowed mask, their argmax distributions agree by construction. Why this matters Empirically validated on the same target/draft class hipfire ships (Qwen3.6-27B + DFlash MQ4 draft). Cheaper than CASK / TriAttention at runtime: a single win_start shift in the FA mask, no separate scoring kernel pass per cycle. Compounds with DFlash spec-decode where verify/replay FA is the long-context hot path. Hipfire has no equivalent today Mechanism hipfire status Sliding

📅 Opened Apr 28, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 70/100Contribute

Status: open invitation, hardware-gated. Needs Strix Halo (Ryzen AI Max+ 395 / Radeon 8060S / any other gfx1151 SKU). Local maintainer doesn't have one. Context PR #59 (@KotDath) just landed the autodetect fix so hipfire diag and scripts/install.sh correctly recognize gfx1151 KFD topology (gfx_target_version 110501 → gfx1151). The arch now resolves to its existing archDefaults profile (asym2 KV, 16 GB shared memory budget). What's NOT shipped yet for gfx1151: tests/speed-baselines/gfx1151.txt — the speed-gate refuses to run on archs without a baseline file. Anyone with the hardware can bootstrap it in one command, see below. Documented bench numbers in docs/BENCHMARKS.md "Other arches" section — currently lists gfx1030 / gfx1010 / gfx1013 / gfx94x but not gfx1151. Coherence-gate confirmation across the model matrix — KotDath confirmed 0.8b + 9b + 9b-draft + DFlash work on Strix Halo, but a full ./scripts/coherence-gate.sh run would close the loop. Phase 1 — speed-baseline (

📅 Opened Apr 27, 2026💬 13 comments
Quality: 70/100Contribute
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 warpfront/hipfire

When evaluating whether to contribute to warpfront/hipfire, 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 warpfront/hipfire acknowledge new external contributions in approximately -. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 68.0% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to warpfront/hipfire

01

Is warpfront/hipfire welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

warpfront/hipfire has a recorded first-timer success rate of 75.0%. 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 61.9 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 61.9 places warpfront/hipfire in the Welcoming tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for warpfront/hipfire?

The external pull request merge rate is 68.0%. 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 warpfront/hipfire?

warpfront/hipfire does not have open beginner labels indexed currently, but external PRs for bugs and documentation improvements are evaluated via normal issue triage.

GetMerged C-Rank™ Indexing Standard

All metrics displayed for warpfront/hipfire 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.