Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
First 3 contributions merged — links submitted
4–6 weeks
Make 3 meaningful contributions to open-source projects and have them merged or accepted. 'Meaningful' means each contribution fixes a real bug, adds real documentation, resolves a real issue, or improves real code — not trivial formatting-only changes, not adding a single blank line, not fixing a typo in a README that nobody would have noticed. The GOVERNANCE framing here is important: open-source contribution is a public leadership act — your changes become part of a project that others depend on, without any employer, salary, or institutional authority prompting you.
Proof required
Share the direct GitHub/GitLab/Bitbucket URLs of 3 merged pull requests or accepted contributions. For each, write one sentence explaining what the contribution changed and why it mattered to the project.
What gets checked
- All 3 contributions are merged or accepted — open PRs do not count.
- Each contribution is substantive: more than a one-word typo fix or whitespace change — the project maintainer's decision to merge it is the primary signal, but trivial changes are still excluded.
- At least 2 of the 3 contributions are to repositories you did not create yourself.
Common mistakes
- Contributing only to your own repositories — GOVERNANCE requires serving a community you are part of, not one you control.
- Submitting trivial contributions purely to reach the count — quantity without quality defeats the purpose; a maintainer who merges your PR is the real verifier.
- Contributions to inactive repositories where anything gets merged because no one is maintaining standards — seek active projects with code review.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Click every linked URL and confirm it is a merged PR — not an open PR, not an issue, not a fork.
- Scan the diff for each contribution: if it changes only whitespace, formatting, or a single word, it is trivial — ask the submitter to explain what was broken or missing before their contribution.
- Confirm at least 2 of the 3 contributions are to repositories the submitter did not create — check the repo owner's GitHub username against the submitter's.
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
7 contributions merged — variety across projects
5–7 weeks (contributions 4–7 across new repositories)
Reach 7 total merged contributions. By this milestone, contributions should span at least 3 different repositories — not 7 contributions to the same codebase. Working across different projects tests whether you can navigate unfamiliar codebases, read existing conventions, and contribute without ownership — which is the GOVERNANCE claim: leadership without authority across contexts you do not control.
Proof required
Share the direct URLs of all 7 merged contributions. Write 100 words on what you found most difficult about contributing to a project that wasn't yours: name one specific thing that was different from working in your own codebase and how you handled it.
What gets checked
- 7 merged contributions with direct PR URLs.
- Contributions span at least 3 distinct repositories.
- The 100-word reflection names a specific cross-project challenge — not a generic observation about open source.
Common mistakes
- All 7 contributions in the same repository — variety across projects is explicitly required by this milestone.
- Contributions get progressively less substantive as the count climbs — the quality bar does not lower as the number rises.
- Cross-project reflection is generic: 'it was different because every project is different' — name a specific example.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Verify that contributions span at least 3 distinct repositories — check that repo URLs are distinct, not just different branches of the same repo.
- The cross-project reflection should name something specific: 'the project uses a different testing framework than I'm used to and I had to read the existing tests to understand the pattern' is specific.
- Check for quality drift: if earlier contributions were substantive and later ones are increasingly trivial, ask about the trend.
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
10 contributions merged — impact summary submitted
6–8 weeks (contributions 8–10, impact write-up)
Complete the full 10 merged contributions. At 10 contributions across multiple projects, you are no longer a first-time contributor — you have established a pattern of sustained open-source participation. The impact summary at this milestone is not a list of what you did; it is an honest assessment of whether the contributions mattered to anyone other than you. Include: which projects accepted the most contributions and why, one contribution that received substantive reviewer feedback and how you responded, and one honest sentence about what you would do differently if you were starting this outcome again.
Proof required
Share URLs for all 10 merged contributions in a list. Submit an impact summary (200 words minimum): which projects you contributed to most and why, one contribution where you received substantive reviewer feedback and what you changed in response, and one honest sentence about what you would do differently. If any contribution was rejected before merging, describe that experience.
What gets checked
- 10 merged contributions with direct PR URLs, spanning at least 3 distinct repositories.
- Impact summary is 200 words minimum and engages specifically with the prompts above — a list of what was contributed is not an impact summary.
- At least one contribution in the impact summary involved real reviewer feedback — not just an auto-merge.
Common mistakes
- Impact summary that lists contributions rather than assessing impact — the question is 'did it matter?' not 'what did I do?'
- No reviewer interaction in any of the 10 contributions — 10 auto-merged PRs to low-activity repositories avoid the real test of open-source contribution.
- Honest sentence about 'what I would do differently' is absent or formulaic — this is the credibility signal that distinguishes genuine reflection from an exercise in completion.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Verify all 10 PR URLs are accessible and show 'Merged' status — not 'Closed' without merge, not 'Open'.
- Check that contributions span at least 3 distinct repositories — count the unique repo owners and names.
- The reviewer-feedback section of the impact summary is the most important credibility signal: a contribution with real back-and-forth with a maintainer demonstrates that the submission engaged with a living community, not just auto-merged repositories.
- The 'what I would do differently' sentence should be specific and honest — flag a generic positive reflection as a concern.
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.