Read 2026-11-03
browser-act/skills: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in browser-act/skills's code and history at 11c057b: 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 | not assessable |
| 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
adequateLittle of the recent change carries a trace of review
adequateIn the last 24 months, 41 of 463 commits (8.9%) carry any trace of review: a merge, a pull-request reference, a Reviewed-by or Reviewed-on trailer, a Closes/Fixes reference, a maintainer's sign-off on someone else's change, or a change applied by someone other than its author. That is low but not absent. Review may happen in a workflow this history does not record; a buyer should ask how change is approved before it ships.
| 41 of 463 commits in the last 24 months carry review evidence; 8.9% across all 463 |
Nothing in the history is tagged as a release
adequateAcross 0.5 years of history there is not one tag. There may still be a deployment process, but this repository holds no record of what shipped when — which is the record a buyer needs to reconstruct an incident or a regression after the fact.
| 0 tags across 463 commits and 199 days |
Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository
adequateOf five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: CI workflows. 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.
| 1 of 5 markers present across 274 tracked files |
Product & Engineering Maturity
not assessableChange keeps returning to the same few files
adequateFive files out of 436 absorb 26% of all file-level change. Concentration like this is where debt is usually being serviced rather than repaid: the same code is reopened because it is load-bearing, fragile, or both. A repository cannot tell you which — that is a conversation with the team.
solutions/README.md — 76 commits touched it |
README.md — 55 commits touched it |
browser-act/SKILL.md — 51 commits touched it |
browser-act-skill-forge/SKILL.md — 13 commits touched it |
amazon-competitor-analyzer/SKILL.md — 9 commits touched it |
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 274 tracked files; 0 present |
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 browser-act/skills: 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.