Read 2026-10-04
textualize/rich: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in textualize/rich's code and history at 9d8f9a3: 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 | strong |
| Observability & Operations | not assessable |
| Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
What the repository says
.github/pull_request_template.md:34: states a policy on AI-generated contributions
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongrich/_emoji_codes.py is 3,611 lines, 38× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 94 lines. 6 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,611. 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.
rich/_emoji_codes.py:1 — 3,611 lines (38× median) |
rich/console.py:1 — 2,699 lines (28× median) |
rich/progress.py:1 — 1,717 lines (18× median) |
rich/text.py:1 — 1,364 lines (14× median) |
rich/pretty.py:1 — 1,017 lines (10× median) |
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
adequate26% of commit subjects say nothing about the change
adequate887 of 3,387 subjects are either under twelve characters or one of the standard placeholders — wip, fix, update. The history is therefore not usable for reconstructing why a decision was taken, which is the main thing an inheriting engineer needs it for. It says nothing about code quality and a great deal about how much context transfers with the asset.
| 887/3,387 low-content subjects (26.2%) |
| 'nicer print' |
| 'docstring' |
| 'optimized' |
| 'tidy sig' |
Product & Engineering Maturity
strongNo finding.
Security & Reliability Posture
strongThe build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate3 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/newissue.yml:22 — action pinned by tag |
.github/workflows/pythonpackage.yml:27 — action pinned by tag |
6 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 3 high or critical
adequate6 of 49 locked dependencies match 13 published advisories in OSV, 3 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. None of the high or critical ones is in what the product ships: they are development dependencies.
poetry.lock — virtualenv 20.34.0: GHSA-94p9-xgh2-xp45 (high), fixed in 21.7.12; a development dependency |
poetry.lock — black 22.12.0: GHSA-fj7x-q9j7-g6q6 (moderate), fixed in 24.3.0; a development dependency |
poetry.lock — filelock 3.16.1: GHSA-qmgc-5h2g-mvrw (moderate), fixed in 3.20.3; 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 textualize/rich: 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.