Maintainer guide
How to create good-first issues that earn contributor trust
The good-first-issue label is valuable only when it signals a real, bounded task. Use it to create a trustworthy entry path, not to inflate activity or outsource an unclear problem.
Define the outcome before applying the label
A strong starter issue describes what will be observably better when the work is complete. It should be possible for a contributor to understand the user or maintainer problem, locate a likely area of the codebase, and validate the result without access to private systems.
Avoid labeling an issue that is really a product decision, a security investigation, a large refactor, or an untriaged report. Those tasks may be important, but calling them beginner-friendly transfers hidden complexity to the least informed participant.
Give enough context to begin safely
Include the problem statement, in-scope behavior, out-of-scope behavior, likely files or documents, and acceptance criteria. State whether screenshots, tests, documentation updates, or manual checks are expected. Link a related convention or example when one exists.
Use plain language. A contributor should not have to decode internal shorthand, ask for credentials, or reconstruct architecture from unrelated files to understand the first step. If background is too large for the issue, create a smaller preparatory task instead.
- One independently useful outcome.
- No private credentials, production access, or hidden dependency.
- Specific acceptance criteria and a practical validation path.
- A named maintainer or public thread for clarification when feasible.
Maintain labels after publishing
A label is a promise about scope, not a permanent decoration. Remove or revise it when an issue becomes blocked, receives a large design change, develops a security implication, or is already being actively worked on. Keeping stale starter labels harms newcomer trust more than having fewer labels.
Do not create placeholder issues merely to affect a score or rank. A repository becomes more welcoming when the issues are genuinely useful and maintained, not when the counter is higher.
Review first contributions with the same care
When a contributor opens work on a starter issue, acknowledge the effort, review the defined outcome, and explain requested changes specifically. If the original scope was misleading, own the correction rather than blaming the contributor for missing context.
An accepted pull request is not the only successful onboarding result. A clear response, a useful learning outcome, and an accurate next step can make the contributor’s next attempt much more effective.
About this guide
Written by ETHIOR Editorial for contributors and maintainers. This guide explains practical product and repository practices; it is not legal, security, employment, or financial advice. Review the project’s How It Works, Privacy Policy, and Terms & Conditions for product boundaries.
Put the ideas into practice
Run a fresh public GitHub audit and use the visible contributor signals as a starting point—not as a certification of project quality or safety.
Check a repository