Read 2026-11-07
avajs/ava: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in avajs/ava's code and history at 95297b6: 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 |
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongNo finding.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
adequate2 committed .only switches other tests off
adequate2 test files commit a focused `.only`, which runs that test and silently skips the rest of its suite. 4 skip markers across 4 of 803 test files. Each is a failure somebody chose to stop seeing; the question is whether anyone is tracking them.
test/snapshot-removal/fixtures/only-test/test.js:17 — committed .only: other tests do not run |
test/watch-mode/fixtures/exclusive/b.test.js:5 — committed .only: other tests do not run |
test/snapshot-removal/fixtures/skipped-tests/test.js:17 — skipped test |
test/snapshot-workflow/fixtures/invalid-snapfile/test.js:15 — skipped test |
test/snapshot-workflow/selection.js:38 — skipped test |
Product & Engineering Maturity
strongEffort is shifting from building to rewriting
adequateDeleted lines per line added rose from 0.71 to 0.90 between the first and second halves of this history. Rework is normal and often healthy, but a rising ratio means an increasing share of the team's time is spent replacing code that already exists rather than building what does not. Whether that is deliberate repayment or churn is a question for the team.
| first half 0.71, second half 0.90 (split 2020-11-05) |
Security & Reliability Posture
adequateNone of the standard security guard rails are configured
adequateThere is no disclosure policy, no automated dependency updates, no named code owners and no pre-commit configuration. None of these is load-bearing on its own. Their collective absence says that security posture here is whatever the current team happens to remember to do, which is not a posture that survives the team changing.
| checked 5 kinds of guard rail across 967 tracked files; 0 present |
3 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities
adequate3 of 813 locked dependencies match 3 published advisories in OSV. 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 — glob 13.0.6: GHSA-3g3m-2fjr-6pw4 (moderate), fixed in 14.0.2 |
pnpm-lock.yaml — minimatch 10.2.6: GHSA-g3hv-75wg-m249 (moderate), fixed in 11.0.1 |
pnpm-lock.yaml — katex 0.16.47: GHSA-238p-pmpm-9mq7 (low), fixed in 0.18.2; a development dependency |
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 avajs/ava: 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.