Read 2026-11-03
automaapp/automa: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in automaapp/automa's code and history at a4cbe34: 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 | adequate |
| Product & Engineering Maturity | strong |
| Security & Reliability Posture | adequate |
| Observability & Operations | not assessable |
| Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
What the repository says
LICENSE: Relicensed: MIT → AGPL-3.0 (2022-08-06)
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongsrc/utils/firstWorkflows.js is 2,345 lines, 25× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 91 lines. 4 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 2,345. 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.
src/utils/firstWorkflows.js:1 — 2,345 lines (25× median) |
src/utils/shared.js:1 — 1,812 lines (19× median) |
src/newtab/pages/workflows/[id].vue:1 — 1,718 lines (18× median) |
src/background/index.js:1 — 1,101 lines (12× median) |
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
adequateTests are absent or token
adequate0 test files against 448 source files (0.0%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.
| 0 test files / 448 source files |
Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository
adequateOf five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — none are present. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.
| 0 of 5 markers present across 540 tracked files |
Product & Engineering Maturity
strongNo finding.
Security & Reliability Posture
adequate62 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 21 high or critical in what ships
adequate62 of 1,082 locked dependencies match 151 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.
pnpm-lock.yaml — jspdf 2.5.2: GHSA-f8cm-6447-x5h2 (critical), fixed in 4.0.0 |
pnpm-lock.yaml — proxy-addr 2.0.7: GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h (critical), fixed in 2.0.8; a development dependency |
pnpm-lock.yaml — @intlify/core-base 9.14.5: GHSA-83rm-6c8r-g728 (high), fixed in 11.4.14 |
Relicensed: MIT → AGPL-3.0 (2022-08-06)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). The latest terms restrict what users, hosts or a buyer may do in ways the earlier ones did not. Code taken under the old terms stays under them, so both matter in diligence.
Observability & Operations
not assessableNot rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
Fit with the Acquirer
not assessableNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
Read more, or read your own
The full report on automaapp/automa: 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.