The biggest lessons I learned from open source contributions weren't found in the code itself. Communication, collaboration, and workflows matter more than I expected.
For a long time, I hesitated to contribute to open source.
Part of it was because I assumed that contributing meant writing code. As a self-taught developer, that felt intimidating. The other part was "Git anxiety." Forks, branches, pull requests, merge conflicts, and CI checks all seemed like a lot to understand before I could even make a contribution.
Eventually, I started small. Instead of focusing on code, I looked for opportunities to improve documentation, README files, and learning materials. What surprised me was that writing the actual change was often the easy part.
Most of my learning happened outside the code itself: understanding contribution guidelines, repository workflows, automation, and review expectations. Over time, I realized that modern open source contribution is about much more than just writing code.
Contribution Model Has Changed
When many people think about open source contributions, the mental model is still fairly simple:
Find Bug
↓
Write Code
↓
Open PR
In reality, I realized that most modern repos involve much more than that.
Before making a change, contributors often need to understand project workflows, CI pipelines, automated checks, contribution guidelines, and review expectations. The code change itself might only take a few minutes, while understanding how the repo operates can take much longer.
A modern contribution often looks more like this:
Understand Repository
↓
Understand Workflow
↓
Understand Automation
↓
Make Change
↓
Open PR
↓
Respond to Review
It looks intimidating, but I think this flow helps projects stay maintainable as communications grow.
What I've learned from contributing to different projects is that open source is not just a coding skill.
It's also a collaboration skill.
The faster you can understand how a project works, the easier it becomes to contribute regardless of the tech stack.
The Subtle Rules of Open Source Contribution
Most repos do a great job documenting their contribution process. README files, CONTRIBUTING guides, issue templates, and PR templates usually explain the basics.
What took me longer to understand were the expectations that aren't always captured in a single document.
For example, maintainers may prefer smaller pull requests even if they don't explicitly say so. A repository may technically accept feature contributions, but recent activity might show that documentation improvements receive faster reviews. Some projects expect contributors to discuss ideas before opening a PR, while others prefer contributors to jump in and submit changes directly.
I've also learned that automation often communicates expectations. GitHub Actions, CI pipelines, and pre-commit hooks don't just validate code—they reveal what a project values. Formatting standards, test coverage, commit conventions, and quality checks are often enforced automatically rather than explained in detail.
Over time, I stopped looking for a single source of truth. Instead, I started treating a repo as a collection of signals. The documentation tells us the official process, while the project's workflows, automation, and recent Pull Requests often show how the project actually operates day to day.
Why Beginners (Including Myself) Feel Overwhelmed
When people talked about contributing to open source when I started to use GitHub, they often focused on learning Git. But looking back, Git wasn't the hardest part for me.
The challenge was learning several systems at the same time:
- Git
- GitHub
- CI Pipelines
- automated checks
- code review workflows
- etc.
A simple documentation fix requires creating a fork, opening a PR, passing automated checks, and responding to review feedback. Even when the change itself is small, the process can feel overwhelming at first.
What helped me was realizing that mistakes are expected.
A failed CI check, a requested revision (often by AI nowadays), or a rejected idea isn't a sign that you don't belong in the Open Source. They are simply part of how collaborative software development works.
Once I stopped viewing contributions as a test and started viewing them as a learning process, open source became much less intimidating.
What I Look For Before Contributing Now
After contributing to different projects from big to small, I've developed a simple checklist before opening an issue or PR.
- Is the project actively maintained?
- What types of contributions are welcomed?
- How are recent PRs reviewed?
- What do the CI checks and automation enforce?
- Are there contribution guidelines or coding standards?
- What contribution patterns do maintainers seem to prefer?
None of these requires deep technical knowledge, but they can save a lot of time and confusion.
I've found that spending at least 10-20 minutes understanding a repo often leads to a smoother contribution experience than jumping straight into making or suggesting changes.
Final Thoughts
Soft Skills Matter in the Age of AI
Every open source project is different and diverse, but after contributing across multiple repos, I've noticed that many share similar patterns beneath the surface.
The code still matters, of course. But successful contributions often depend just as much on understanding workflows, automation, collaboration practices, and communication skills. Writing clear comments, participating in discussions, and developing strong soft skills can be just as important as writing code for working effectively with maintainers and contributors.
For me, one of the biggest lessons from open source has been that contributing isn't only about writing code—it's about learning how to work effectively within a community. Once I started viewing repositories through that lens, contributing became much less intimidating and much more rewarding.
One Commit A Day
If you're interested in building a sustainable open source habit, I've been documenting my own journey through a One Commit a Day challenge. The goal isn't to make a massive contribution every day—it's simply to stay engaged, keep learning, and gradually become more comfortable navigating open source projects and communities.
