Read 2026-10-23
aaif-goose/goose: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in aaif-goose/goose's code and history at c3bfc5f: its licence, security advisories, releases, review practice, tests, dependencies and operations. Every finding cites the file and line it rests on. The full report also covers the team and asks the questions the code cannot answer.
| Dimension | Rating |
|---|---|
| Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong |
| Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong |
| Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate |
| Security & Reliability Posture | adequate |
| Observability & Operations | strong |
| Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
What the repository says
- Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
README.md:29: names Linux FoundationSECURITY.md:13: states a policy on AI-generated contributions
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongcrates/goose-provider-types/src/formats/openai.rs is 5,999 lines, 42× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 140 lines. 44 files exceed 1,400 lines, the largest being 5,999. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
crates/goose-provider-types/src/formats/openai.rs:1 — 5,999 lines (42× median) |
crates/goose/src/session/session_manager.rs:1 — 5,459 lines (38× median) |
crates/goose/src/acp/provider.rs:1 — 4,770 lines (34× median) |
crates/goose/src/acp/server.rs:1 — 3,934 lines (28× median) |
crates/goose-cli/src/session/mod.rs:1 — 3,408 lines (24× median) |
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
strongNo finding.
Product & Engineering Maturity
adequate13% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 1811 fixes in the last 24 months, 227 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| 227 of 1811 |
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v1.56.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v1.0.35. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
| tag v1.56.0 |
Security & Reliability Posture
adequate3 credential-shaped strings committed to the tree
adequateMatches for private key block appear in tracked files outside test and fixture paths. They stay in the history even after they leave the tree, so what matters is whether each was rotated. The code cannot tell whether any of them is live, and that decides whether this matters: none sits in production configuration, and none is in a format its provider keeps for live keys. Is any of these live? Show that each was rotated after it was committed, and when. 1 other match set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
| 3 cited: private key block pattern matched |
1 Dockerfile runs the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
services/ask-ai-bot/Dockerfile — runs as root |
1 environment file is committed
adequateui/desktop/.env is tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
ui/desktop/.env — committed environment file |
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate3 steps pipe a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
.github/workflows/python-sdk-wheels.yml:58 — download piped into a shell |
38 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 11 high or critical in what ships
adequate38 of 2,594 locked dependencies match 139 published advisories in OSV, 60 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
ui/pnpm-lock.yaml — proxy-addr 2.0.7: GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h (critical), fixed in 2.0.8 |
ui/pnpm-lock.yaml — tar 6.2.1: GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw (critical), fixed in 7.5.19; a development dependency |
ui/pnpm-lock.yaml — body-parser 2.2.2: GHSA-27r3-jxmh-p828 (high), fixed in 2.4.0 |
12 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate12 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
crates/goose-mcp/src/autovisualiser/templates/assets/d3.min.js:2 — HTML from a variable |
crates/goose-mcp/src/autovisualiser/templates/assets/d3.min.js:2 — HTML from a variable |
crates/goose-mcp/src/autovisualiser/templates/assets/leaflet.min.js:5 — HTML from a variable |
3 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-12. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 1 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 1.56.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 12 records name goose with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-111079, CVE-2026-48503, CVE-2026-48741, …).
| 2026-10-12: CVE-2026-109561 (low): goose from 1.28.0 before 1.44.0 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability that allows tools to run without user approval in Manual Approval mode because pe |
| 2026-09-04: CVE-2026-85623 (high): goose 1.37.0 executes arbitrary commands from recipe stdio extensions and retry.checks without security inspection. Attackers can distribute malicious recipes t |
| 2026-07-24: GHSA-r5pp-p5r8-466r (high), fixed in 1.44.0: Arbitrary command execution in goose CLI via `goose review` via git core.fsmonitor |
Observability & Operations
strongNo error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
| no error reporter initialised |
Fit with the Acquirer
not assessableNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
Read more, or read your own
The full report on aaif-goose/goose: every dimension, the questions for the room, and the audit log.
Survey a repository: free on public repositories. Private code is read on your own machine by a collector whose source you can read first.