Read 2026-11-03
argilla-io/argilla: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in argilla-io/argilla's code and history at 5338519: 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 | strong |
| Security & Reliability Posture | adequate |
| Observability & Operations | adequate |
| Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
What the repository says
- Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongargilla-v1/src/argilla_v1/client/feedback/training/schemas/base.py is 1,630 lines, 26× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 62 lines. 5 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 1,630. 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.
argilla-v1/src/argilla_v1/client/feedback/training/schemas/base.py:1 — 1,630 lines (26× median) |
argilla-v1/src/argilla_v1/client/datasets.py:1 — 1,626 lines (26× median) |
argilla-v1/src/argilla_v1/labeling/text_classification/weak_labels.py:1 — 1,094 lines (17× median) |
argilla-v1/src/argilla_v1/client/feedback/dataset/local/mixins.py:1 — 1,037 lines (16× median) |
argilla-v1/src/argilla_v1/client/feedback/dataset/remote/dataset.py:1 — 1,028 lines (16× median) |
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
strongTests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (argilla-frontend/playwright.config.ts); 2 tests are individually marked to retry. A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
argilla-frontend/playwright.config.ts:12 — test retry |
argilla/tests/integration/test_export_dataset.py:102 — test retry |
argilla/tests/integration/test_export_dataset.py:171 — test retry |
Product & Engineering Maturity
strongReleases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v2.8.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v2.7.1. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
| tag v2.8.0 |
Security & Reliability Posture
adequateThe build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate14 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day. 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/argilla-frontend.build-push-dev-frontend-docker.yml:69 — action pinned by tag |
.github/workflows/argilla-frontend.build-push-dev-frontend-docker.yml:86 — action pinned by tag |
62 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 37 high or critical in what ships
adequate62 of 1,275 locked dependencies match 156 published advisories in OSV, 74 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.
argilla-frontend/package-lock.json — form-data 4.0.1: GHSA-fjxv-7rqg-78g4 (critical), fixed in 4.0.4 |
argilla-frontend/package-lock.json — pbkdf2 3.1.2: GHSA-h7cp-r72f-jxh6 (critical), fixed in 3.1.3; reached only by the build |
argilla-frontend/package-lock.json — sha.js 2.4.11: GHSA-95m3-7q98-8xr5 (critical), fixed in 2.4.12; reached only by the build |
22 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate22 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.
argilla-frontend/components/base/base-badge/BaseBadge.vue:3 — HTML from a variable |
argilla-frontend/components/base/base-card/BaseCard.vue:4 — HTML from a variable |
argilla-frontend/components/base/base-feedback/base-feedback-error/BaseFeedbackError.component.vue:3 — HTML from a variable |
3 advisories against this project in the last 24 months
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-26. 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 3 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 2.7.1. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
| 2026-10-26: CVE-2026-116554 (low): A flaw has been found in Argilla up to 2.8.0. The affected element is the function Dataset.from_disk of the file argilla-frontend/components/features/annotation |
| 2026-10-26: CVE-2026-116555 (low): A vulnerability has been found in Argilla up to 2.8.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file argilla-frontend/components/features/annotation/c |
| 2026-10-26: CVE-2026-116556 (low): A vulnerability was found in Argilla up to 2.8.0. This affects an unknown function of the file argilla-frontend/components/features/annotation/container/fields/ |
Observability & Operations
adequateNo telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere
adequateNone of 1,984 readable files references an instrumentation, metrics or error-reporting library. If this system is in production, nobody learns that it broke from the system itself — they learn it from a customer. That is a reliability finding before it is an observability one.
| searched 1,984 tracked text files for 16 known instrumentation libraries; manifests for metrics, tracing and error-reporting families; locked dependencies for the packages that emit; 0 matched |
No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| searched 1,984 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
One request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.
| no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
No 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 argilla-io/argilla: 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.