6d5af04 · 6,278 commits · 6,408 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
102 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 18 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.60 Relicensed: MPL-2.0 → Apache-2.0 (2025-09-09) LICENSE
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/pull_request_template.md:28
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 05.26 12 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 47 high or critical in what ships
- 4 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 3 credential-shaped matches are withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 28% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑Commit messages are templated rather than written
adequate32% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 25.7 characters. A log written by someone explaining their reasoning to a future reader does not look like this. The log is therefore weak evidence of intent, whatever the code is like.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| commit-subjects | 736× 'README' |
| commit-subjects | 116× 'update' |
| commit-subjects | 32× 'fix: validation' |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
libs/agno/agno/workflow/workflow.py is 12,110 lines, 134× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 90 lines. 111 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 12,110. 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | libs/agno/agno/workflow/workflow.py:1 — 12,110 lines (134× median) |
| line-count | libs/agno/agno/team/_run.py:1 — 10,518 lines (116× median) |
| line-count | libs/agno/agno/db/postgres/postgres.py:1 — 9,961 lines (110× median) |
| line-count | libs/agno/agno/db/sqlite/sqlite.py:1 — 8,890 lines (98× median) |
| line-count | libs/agno/agno/db/postgres/async_postgres.py:1 — 7,236 lines (80× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · adequate · ratings ↑26% of commit subjects say nothing about the change
adequate1,470 of 5,757 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.
| commit-subject-content | 1,470/5,757 low-content subjects (25.5%) |
| example | 'v2.0.60' |
| example | 'README' |
| example | 'v2.0.60' |
| example | 'v2.0.61' |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (.github/workflows/test_on_release.yml); 8 tests are individually marked to retry. 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/test_on_release.yml | .github/workflows/test_on_release.yml:33 — test retry |
| libs/agno/pyproject.toml | libs/agno/pyproject.toml:464 — test retry |
| libs/agno/tests/integration/agent/test_async_tool_calling.py | libs/agno/tests/integration/agent/test_async_tool_calling.py:156 — test retry |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑Fixes are 52% of recent work, up from 34%
adequateIn the last two quarters 52% of commits were fixes, against 34% in the quarters before. Rising fix work usually means quality debt is coming due, and it takes time that new work would have had.
| fix share by quarter | 56%, 48%, 45%, 42%, 41%, 35%, 20%, 21% |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑3 credential-shaped strings in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings
adequateStrings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key.
| Slack token | 3 cited: Slack token, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 Dockerfile runs 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.
| no-USER-instruction | cookbook/frameworks/sandbox/Dockerfile — runs as root |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
12 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 47 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first12 of 65 locked dependencies match 102 published advisories in OSV, 48 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.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening cookbook/91_tools/mcp/mcp_toolbox_demo/uv.lock settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| cookbook/91_tools/mcp/mcp_toolbox_demo/uv.lock | cookbook/91_tools/mcp/mcp_toolbox_demo/uv.lock — anyio 4.9.0: GHSA-82r6-8w77-94w6 (critical), fixed in 4.14.2 |
| cookbook/91_tools/mcp/mcp_toolbox_demo/uv.lock | cookbook/91_tools/mcp/mcp_toolbox_demo/uv.lock — certifi 2025.7.14: GHSA-6q48-6c7w-9gw2 (critical), fixed in 2026.10.19 |
| cookbook/91_tools/mcp/mcp_toolbox_demo/uv.lock | cookbook/91_tools/mcp/mcp_toolbox_demo/uv.lock — gitpython 3.1.45: GHSA-284h-m62q-gf8w (critical), fixed in 3.1.59 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The 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; 40 steps pipe a download straight into a shell. 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/claude.yml | .github/workflows/claude.yml:58 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/release.yml | .github/workflows/release.yml:56 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/test_on_release.yml | .github/workflows/test_on_release.yml:55 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
23 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate23 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| cookbook/02_agents/12_multimodal/audio_input_output.py | cookbook/02_agents/12_multimodal/audio_input_output.py:17 — outbound call without a timeout |
| cookbook/02_agents/12_multimodal/audio_sentiment_analysis.py | cookbook/02_agents/12_multimodal/audio_sentiment_analysis.py:29 — outbound call without a timeout |
| cookbook/02_agents/12_multimodal/audio_to_text.py | cookbook/02_agents/12_multimodal/audio_to_text.py:23 — outbound call without a timeout |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
31 SQL statements built from strings
adequate31 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 2 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| cookbook/data_labeling/_05_text_pairwise_preference/jury_hardened.py | cookbook/data_labeling/_05_text_pairwise_preference/jury_hardened.py:66 — SQL built from a string |
| libs/agno/agno/db/clickhouse/clickhouse.py | libs/agno/agno/db/clickhouse/clickhouse.py:551 — SQL built from a string |
| cookbook/05_agent_os/chart_responses/agentos_platform_dashboard.py | cookbook/05_agent_os/chart_responses/agentos_platform_dashboard.py:189 — SQL built from a string |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 deserialiser that can run code
adequate1 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (pickle). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| libs/agno/agno/utils/pickle.py | libs/agno/agno/utils/pickle.py:26 — code-executing deserialiser |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
7 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate7 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| cookbook/05_agent_os/26_authorization/console.html | cookbook/05_agent_os/26_authorization/console.html:438 — HTML from a variable |
| cookbook/05_agent_os/26_authorization/console.html | cookbook/05_agent_os/26_authorization/console.html:505 — HTML from a variable |
| cookbook/05_agent_os/26_authorization/console.html | cookbook/05_agent_os/26_authorization/console.html:548 — HTML from a variable |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Relicensed: MPL-2.0 → Apache-2.0 (2025-09-09)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
9 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 4 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-12. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 4 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 3.1.10. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 2 records name agno with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2025-8665, CVE-2026-37003).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| CVE-2026-108816 | 2026-10-12: CVE-2026-108816 (low): A vulnerability was found in agno-agi agno up to 3.0.6. Affected by this vulnerability is the function run_python_code of the file python.py of the component Py |
| CVE-2026-108817 | 2026-10-12: CVE-2026-108817 (low): A vulnerability was determined in agno-agi agno up to 3.0.9. Affected by this issue is the function agno.CodingTools.run_shell in the library libs/agno/agno/too |
| CVE-2026-108818 | 2026-10-12: CVE-2026-108818 (moderate): A vulnerability was identified in agno-agi agno up to 2.7.3/3.0.6. This affects the function get_authentication_dependency of the file auth.py. Such manipulatio |
| CVE-2026-108819 | 2026-10-12: CVE-2026-108819 (moderate): A security flaw has been discovered in agno-agi agno up to 3.0.6/3.1.1. This vulnerability affects the function exec of the component Agent Orchestration Layer. |
| CVE-2026-108820 | 2026-10-12: CVE-2026-108820 (low): A weakness has been identified in agno-agi agno up to 3.0.6/3.1.1. This issue affects the function member_agent.run in the library libs/agno/agno/team/_default_ |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑No 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.
| logging-scan | searched 6,337 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 of 2 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate1 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| cookbook/91_tools/mcp/mcp_toolbox_demo/docker-compose.yml | cookbook/91_tools/mcp/mcp_toolbox_demo/docker-compose.yml:4 — image without a version |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
9 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 4,414 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 612 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Python codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in libs/, cookbook/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 43% of added lines came through AI-declared commits. Does your organisation have a policy on inheriting and maintaining that code, and does your engineering team's tooling match how it was produced?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (cookbook/91_tools/mcp/mcp_toolbox_demo/docker-compose.yml and 1 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/agno-agi/agno/6d5af04)If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
Rejection log — 84 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 84 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 66
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 23,350 · top5 share 0.042 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 98 · per kloc 0.07 · lines read 1,321,551 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.589 · early test per code 0.147 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.363 · early delete per insert 0.402 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,496 · share 0.495 · with tests 741 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 3,541 · compat files 0 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 74 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 50 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 29 · settings off 136 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 146 · release commits 9 · changelog commits 1 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 2.9 · window last 24 months · authors 612 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 612 · active 12mo 334 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 612 · directories 3 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 612 · one off share 0.688 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 612 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than a year ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 560 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 29 · joined 39 · regular last year 58 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 177 · window last 24 months · with tracked 464 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 7 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,630 · source 5,171 · test ratio 0.315 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 263 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 7 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 84 · test files 1,673 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 7 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 6 · recent commits 4,098 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 209 · days since lockfile changed 37 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 4 · ci configs 7 · product files 3,541 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.021 · merges 48 · long lived 1 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.04 · commits 3,769 · over 2000 lines 151 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was merged pull requests, each developed and reviewed on its own branch (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays itlargest commits 2ab01d6..2ba9071 · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 6,260 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 44,605 · share of insertions 0.0213 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 3,880 · write once share 0.538 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,327,841 · files 95 · per kloc 0.14 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 1 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 13 · irreversible 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 1 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 36 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 373 · added in two years 214 · removed within 60 days 10 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 1.5 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 369 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 18 · on branch 240 · tags in window 258 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 18
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Python, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV PyPI agno-infra (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI agnoctl (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 2 records name agno with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2025-8665, CVE-2026-37003) |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited list |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter VSCZ-TCC8-0ZKA at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 106 checks this run performed, the bands they produced, and the commit they were read at. It does not cover checks written since.
Put the mark in your README
The image is wrapped in a link to the verification page, so a reader can check it rather than take it on trust. If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
[](https://borehole.dev/verify/VSCZTCC80ZKA?via=badge)
4 pieces of evidence on this report quote the repository directly. Four checks quote text: up to five TODO-style comments, up to four commit subjects, up to five unpinned dependency lines and one status line from the README's first screen, such as “no longer maintained”. In each case the text is the evidence, which is why it is kept by default.
This rewrites every stored reading of this repository, and every later reading, including a re-read, is stored without the quoted text. The facts we keep to re-read it still hold the lines, as the privacy notice says. The pointers stay.
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 324.8authenticated: False |
| 34.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 46.8s | read the git history | commits: 6278tracked files: 6408 |
| 411.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 411.7s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 695.4s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 695.4s | deleting the working copy |
Total 695.4s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).