Borehole · Project · free tier
streetwriters/notesnook
Free reading: not for reliance
7a18301 · 15,756 commits · 2,852 files
Read 2026-10-28

streetwriters/notesnook: technical due diligence, read from its repository

What Borehole read in streetwriters/notesnook's code and history at 7a18301: 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.

DimensionRating
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenancestrong
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturityadequate
Product & Engineering Maturityadequate
Security & Reliability Postureadequate
Observability & Operationsnot assessable
Fit with the Acquirernot assessable

Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance

strong
01.6

apps/mobile/worker.js is 13,744 lines, 134× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 102 lines. 17 files exceed 1,020 lines, the largest being 13,744. 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.

Evidence
apps/mobile/worker.js:1 — 13,744 lines (134× median)
packages/intl/src/strings.ts:1 — 3,287 lines (32× median)
apps/mobile/app/screens/settings/settings-data.tsx:1 — 1,958 lines (19× median)
packages/sodium/src/@types/sodium-native/index.d.ts:1 — 1,554 lines (15× median)
apps/web/src/stores/editor-store.ts:1 — 1,450 lines (14× median)

Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity

adequate
02.3

Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase

adequate

147 test files against 1,474 source files (10.0%). 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.

Evidence
147 test files / 1,474 source files
02.15

1 committed .only switches other tests off

adequate

1 test file commits a focused `.only`, which runs that test and silently skips the rest of its suite. 18 skip markers across 8 of 181 test files. Each is a failure somebody chose to stop seeing; the question is whether anyone is tracking them.

Evidence
packages/core/__e2e__/sync.test.js:379 — committed .only: other tests do not run
apps/mobile/e2e/tests/note.e2e.ts:114 — skipped test
apps/web/__e2e__/checkout.test.ts:62 — skipped test
apps/web/__e2e__/checkout.test.ts:78 — skipped test
02.16

Tests are retried until they pass

adequate

The suite is configured to retry failing tests (apps/desktop/playwright.config.ts). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.

Evidence
apps/desktop/playwright.config.ts:49 — test retry

Product & Engineering Maturity

adequate
04.3

124 direct dependencies in a single manifest

adequate

apps/mobile/package.json declares 124 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.

Evidence
apps/mobile/package.json — 124 declared
apps/web/package.json — 74 declared
packages/editor/package.json — 53 declared
apps/monograph/package.json — 33 declared
04.5

Effort is shifting from building to rewriting

adequate

Deleted lines per line added rose from 0.62 to 0.94 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.

Evidence
first half 0.62, second half 0.94 (split 2023-05-07)
04.17

Ruby 2.7 is past end of life

adequate

The code is pinned to Ruby 2.7 (end of life 2023-03-31). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2023-03-31. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.

Evidence
apps/mobile/.ruby-version — Ruby 2.7, end of life 2023-03-31
04.19

10% of bug fixes add or change a test

adequate

Of 950 fixes in the last 24 months, 91 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.

Evidence
91 of 950
04.38

11 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago

adequate

11 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Sep 2023. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.

Evidence
packages/theme/src/theme-engine/types.ts — deprecated since Sep 2023
packages/core/src/types.ts — deprecated since Mar 2024
packages/core/src/collections/legacy-settings.ts — deprecated since Mar 2024
packages/core/src/api/index.ts — deprecated since Mar 2024
packages/core/src/database/cached-collection.ts — deprecated since Mar 2024

Security & Reliability Posture

adequate
05.2

None of the standard security guard rails are configured

adequate

There 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.

Evidence
checked 5 kinds of guard rail across 2,852 tracked files; 0 present
05.6

1 Dockerfile runs the application as root

adequate

No 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.

Evidence
servers/themes/Dockerfile — runs as root
05.25

3 environment files are committed

adequate

apps/mobile/.env, apps/mobile/.env.public, packages/editor-mobile/.env are tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.

Evidence
apps/mobile/.env — committed environment file
apps/mobile/.env.public — committed environment file
packages/editor-mobile/.env — committed environment file
05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

23 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.

Evidence
.github/workflows/android.e2e.yml:24 — action pinned by tag
.github/workflows/android.e2e.yml:38 — action pinned by tag
05.26

88 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 93 high or critical in what ships

adequate

88 of 2,613 locked dependencies match 179 published advisories in OSV, 101 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.

Evidence
apps/mobile/package-lock.json — @fastify/middie 8.3.3: GHSA-72c6-fx6q-fr5w (critical), fixed in 9.3.2
apps/monograph/package-lock.json — @remix-run/node 2.12.1: GHSA-9583-h5hc-x8cw (critical), fixed in 2.17.2
extensions/web-clipper/package-lock.json — loader-utils 1.1.0: GHSA-76p3-8jx3-jpfq (critical), fixed in 1.4.1
05.48

34 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it

adequate

34 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.

05.51

The app allows plain HTTP to any server

adequate

The app's manifest allows unencrypted HTTP app-wide (NSAllowsArbitraryLoads, or cleartext traffic permitted), rather than for named domains. Anything sent over plain HTTP can be read on the network, and enterprise security reviews ask about it. Some apps need it by nature (a podcast or feed reader fetches whatever URL a feed gives), so ask which case this is.

Evidence
apps/mobile/ios/Make Note/Info.plist:29 — cleartext allowed app-wide
05.65

5 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical

adequate

The newest was published on 2026-04-25. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed version.

Evidence
2026-04-25: GHSA-fjm8-jg78-89h4 (critical), fixed in >= 3.3.15: RCE via stored XSS in note export rendering
2026-03-28: GHSA-f27j-fqc6-v7pm (moderate), fixed in >= 3.3.17: Stored XSS in mobile share editor via unescaped web clip title metadata
2026-03-25: GHSA-f42f-phvp-43x5 (critical), fixed in >= 3.3.11: RCE via stored XSS in Web Clipper rendering
2026-03-25: GHSA-45g3-cv93-q59v (high), fixed in >= 3.3.11: RCE via stored XSS in Note History diff viewer
2026-03-11: GHSA-jprx-2w2h-4rh5 (moderate), fixed in >= 3.3.9: Stored XSS via unsanitized Twitter/X embed URL in editor (`tweetToEmbed`)

Observability & Operations

not assessable

Not 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 assessable

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.

Read more, or read your own

The full report on streetwriters/notesnook: 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.