I kept seeing "good first issue" contribution guides tell people what to do, but never how good their commits actually were compared to people who do this well. I'd look at a maintainer's commit log and think "why does this read so much better than mine?", but there was no way to actually measure that gap. So I built Kontrib to answer that directly: give it your GitHub username and a repo, and it scores your commit style against the top contributor on real signals, message length, conventional commit usage, multiline rate, then grounds the feedback in actual best-practice docs (kernel.org's patch guidelines, Conventional Commits, GitHub's own contribution docs) via RAG, instead of just asking an LLM to vibe-check your commits. Once analyze mode worked, the obvious next question was "okay but who's actually better, me or my friend?", so I added 1v1 Battle mode, where two GitHub usernames get scored against a composite benchmark built from a repo's top 5 contributors, head to head.

Kontrib

Your commit history, roasted by AI and ranked against pros

Your commit history, roasted by AI and ranked against pros