requarks/wiki: technical due diligence, read from its repository

In the last 24 months, 4 of 268 commits (1.5%) 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. Every common review workflow leaves at least one of those, so either review happens somewhere this history cannot see, or it is not happening. A buyer should establish which before relying on the review story they are told.

0 test files against 679 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.

57 of 241 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.

Of 107 fixes in the last 24 months, 2 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.

17 of 940 locked dependencies match 88 published advisories in OSV, 53 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.

Nothing 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.

Nothing 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.