Read 2026-11-03
robusta-dev/krr: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in robusta-dev/krr's code and history at 5add268: 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
README.md:276: states a policy on AI-generated contributions
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongNo finding.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
strongNo finding.
Product & Engineering Maturity
strongChange keeps returning to the same few files
adequateFive files out of 187 absorb 29% 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.
README.md — 128 commits touched it |
robusta_krr/core/runner.py — 104 commits touched it |
robusta_krr/core/integrations/prometheus/metrics_service/prometheus_metrics_service.py — 73 commits touched it |
robusta_krr/main.py — 67 commits touched it |
pyproject.toml — 62 commits touched it |
Security & Reliability Posture
adequate2 Dockerfiles run the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
Dockerfile — runs as root |
enforcer/Dockerfile — runs as root |
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate6 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/build-on-release.yml:151 — action pinned by tag |
.github/workflows/docker-build-on-tag.yml:20 — action pinned by tag |
7 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate7 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
enforcer/patch_manager.py:196 — outbound call without a timeout |
enforcer/patch_manager.py:213 — outbound call without a timeout |
robusta_krr/core/models/allocations.py:95 — outbound call without a timeout |
4 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 6 high or critical
adequate4 of 70 locked dependencies match 9 published advisories in OSV, 6 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. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
poetry.lock — black 26.3.1: GHSA-cg8m-r9f2-5wm2 (high), fixed in 26.10.1 |
poetry.lock — oauthlib 3.2.2: GHSA-7984-qgvg-3j9c (high), fixed in 4.0.0 |
poetry.lock — pyasn1 0.6.4: GHSA-2qm8-x737-gmw5 (high), fixed in 0.6.5 |
Observability & Operations
adequateNo 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 109 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 |
Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 1 of 1 workloads
adequateBoth probes call the same endpoint. When a dependency slows down, the liveness probe fails with the readiness probe, so the platform restarts pods that only needed taking out of rotation, and a partial outage becomes a full one. Liveness should ask whether the process is alive; readiness whether it can serve.
helm/krr-enforcer/templates/enforcer.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
1 of 1 deployments run a single replica
adequate1 deployments set `replicas: 1`, and nothing (an autoscaler, a disruption budget) adds more. Every deploy and every node drain is downtime, and the availability the buyer inherits has a ceiling.
helm/krr-enforcer/templates/enforcer.yaml — replicas: 1 |
Fit with the Acquirer
not assessableNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
Read more, or read your own
The full report on robusta-dev/krr: 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.