09a18b4 · 636 commits · 74 files
Issued 2026-10-03
104 checks ran against this repository and none found a problem.
Commit history, review discipline, contributor concentration, debt markers, committed credentials and instrumentation were all examined and none of them raised a finding. That is a result about the repository, not an absence of one — the rejection log below lists every check and the numbers it saw, so a clean report can be argued with as easily as a critical one.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | not assessable | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | not assessable | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 11% 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
- deep scan blamed 73 of 73 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 11 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository
adequateOf five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: CI workflows. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| process-scaffolding | 1 of 5 markers present across 74 tracked files |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: this repository belongs to a person rather than an organisation, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone the address names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them. What a person adds here.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 8 of 19 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 16 of 34 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. The findings below are what it could still read.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate13 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/cd.yml | .github/workflows/cd.yml:16 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/cd.yml | .github/workflows/cd.yml:19 — action pinned by tag |
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.
2 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities
adequate2 of 128 locked dependencies match 2 published advisories in OSV. 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — anyhow 1.0.102: RUSTSEC-2026-0190 (unrated), fixed in 1.0.103 |
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — bincode 1.3.3: RUSTSEC-2025-0141 (unrated) |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 4 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
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
3 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- 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 coverageNot rated: this repository belongs to a person rather than an organisation, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone the address names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them.
- Which of the people who wrote this are part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- 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 coverageNot rated: only 8 of 19 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- 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 coverageNot rated: only 16 of 34 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read 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 coverageNot rated: only 4 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- 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 Rust codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Rust in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in src/, templates/, contrib/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- 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/ajeetdsouza/zoxide/09a18b4)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 — 101 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 101 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 — 52
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 198 · top5 share 0.247 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 1 · per kloc 0.13 · lines read 7,596 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.362 · early delete per insert 0.762 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 61 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 2 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 5 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 4 · source 35 · test ratio 0.114 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 38 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 628 · low content share 0.041 |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 5 · with tests 1 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 5 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 100 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 17 · days since lockfile changed 79 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 495 · share of insertions 0.0159 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 16.34 · repeat share 0.072 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 65 · write once share 0.169 |
| 01.oversized_modules | no module is an outlier against this codebase's own normlargest 467 · threshold 1,000 · median lines 63 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0118 · product files 28 · distinct blocks 1,862 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 61 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 27,758 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 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.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 52 · added in two years 2 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 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.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 123.0 · days since last tag 79 · commits last 90 days 35 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 0 · on branch 38 · tags in window 38 |
| 03.single_maintainer | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 49
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.test_growth | Rust keeps unit tests inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | too few fixes in 24 months to judge |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.compat_layers | too little code |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.skipped_tests | too few test files to judge how many are switched off |
| 02.lint_in_build | too small, or no CI to wire a linter into (02.2) |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 02.commit_size | too few recent commits |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.dependency_pinning | no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 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 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two years |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV crates.io zoxide (an empty record for a package published here) did not |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; OSV crates.io zoxide (an empty record for a package published here) did not answer |
| 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 X15D-9RZR-6ADS at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 104 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/X15D9RZR6ADS?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-03 · shown | borehole 0.7.11 | 3 | adequate |
12 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 3 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 3 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 3 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 3 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 3 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 3 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 3 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 3 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 6 | adequate |
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 — 8 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 | authenticated: False |
| 1.1s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 1.5s | read the git history | commits: 636tracked files: 74 |
| 8.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 8.0s | withheld findings about one contributor: the owner is a person | withheld: 2owner kind: person |
| 8.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 9.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 9.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 9.0s ·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).