f9a5d62 · 4,028 commits · 2,466 files
Issued 2026-10-28
Significant: one contributor carries the recent work.
1 of 6 assessable dimensions carries significant findings, 4 are adequate and 1 is strong. 2 findings are worth checking first. 17 findings, each with its evidence: the commit, path and lines it rests on, or, when something is missing, what was looked for. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 03.1 Significant: Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions CONTRIBUTING.md:18
- 1 submodule(s) this survey does not read: website/themes/docsy .gitmodules:1
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.
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | significant findings | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 1% 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 2,383 of 2,384 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/angular-bootstrap/ui-bootstrap-tpls.js is 8,503 lines, 193× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 44 lines. 19 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 8,503. 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. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 90% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| line-count | src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/angular-bootstrap/ui-bootstrap-tpls.js:1 — 8,503 lines (193× median) |
| line-count | src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/angular-bootstrap/ui-bootstrap.js:1 — 8,126 lines (184× median) |
| line-count | src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/angular-ui-router/release/angular-ui-router.js:1 — 4,370 lines (99× median) |
| line-count | src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/ng-file-upload/FileAPI.js:1 — 4,309 lines (97× median) |
| line-count | src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/angular-animate/angular-animate.js:1 — 4,140 lines (94× 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 ↑7% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate10 of 148 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| git log --numstat | 10 commits over 2,000 lines |
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 · significant findings · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
significant findingsIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored three-quarters or more of 179 non-merge commits among 14 authors; across all history, more than half of 3,866. This is the single most expensive thing to discover after closing, and the repository cannot tell you whether that person is part of the transaction.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author three-quarters or more of 179 commits; bus factor 1; 14 authors |
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.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑API v1 and v2 have been served together for 89 months
adequatev2 first appeared in Jun 2019, and v1 is still in the code 89 months later. Two versions mean two surfaces to secure, document and support. Ask who still calls the old one, and whether retiring it is planned.
| src/main/java/alfio/controller/api/v1/admin/EventApiV1Controller.java | src/main/java/alfio/controller/api/v1/admin/EventApiV1Controller.java — v1 since Jun 2018 |
| src/main/java/alfio/controller/api/v2/user/TicketApiV2Controller.java | src/main/java/alfio/controller/api/v2/user/TicketApiV2Controller.java — v2 since Jun 2019 |
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 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate7 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Aug 2017. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| src/main/java/alfio/model/TicketCategoryWithAdditionalInfo.java | src/main/java/alfio/model/TicketCategoryWithAdditionalInfo.java — deprecated since Aug 2017 |
| src/main/java/alfio/model/system/ConfigurationKeys.java | src/main/java/alfio/model/system/ConfigurationKeys.java — deprecated since Jun 2018 |
| src/main/java/alfio/controller/api/v2/model/EventCode.java | src/main/java/alfio/controller/api/v2/model/EventCode.java — deprecated since Jun 2019 |
| src/main/java/alfio/manager/PaymentManager.java | src/main/java/alfio/manager/PaymentManager.java — deprecated since Jan 2020 |
| src/main/java/alfio/model/user/Organization.java | src/main/java/alfio/model/user/Organization.java — deprecated since May 2021 |
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.
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, 1.16.3, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is 1.14.1. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| 469671056 | tag 1.16.3 |
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 ↑44 SQL statements built from strings
adequate worth checking first44 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters, and in 41 of them a value, not a table or column name, goes into the string. Where any of those values comes from a request, it is an injection point. Each site needs a look; the fix, parameters, is small.
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 src/main/java/alfio/db/PGSQL/V22_1_14_8__MigrateMailchimp.java:90 and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| src/main/java/alfio/db/PGSQL/V22_1_14_8__MigrateMailchimp.java | src/main/java/alfio/db/PGSQL/V22_1_14_8__MigrateMailchimp.java:90 — SQL built from a string |
| src/main/java/alfio/repository/BillingDocumentRepository.java | src/main/java/alfio/repository/BillingDocumentRepository.java:72 — SQL built from a string |
| src/main/java/alfio/repository/EmailMessageRepository.java | src/main/java/alfio/repository/EmailMessageRepository.java:102 — 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.
57 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 15 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first57 of 1,132 locked dependencies match 153 published advisories in OSV, 83 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 frontend/public/pnpm-lock.yaml settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| frontend/public/pnpm-lock.yaml | frontend/public/pnpm-lock.yaml — form-data 2.3.3: GHSA-fjxv-7rqg-78g4 (critical), fixed in 2.5.4; a development dependency |
| frontend/public/pnpm-lock.yaml | frontend/public/pnpm-lock.yaml — piscina 4.4.0: GHSA-67c8-pqhq-4rmx (critical), fixed in 4.9.4; a development dependency |
| frontend/public/pnpm-lock.yaml | frontend/public/pnpm-lock.yaml — proxy-addr 2.0.7: GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h (critical), fixed in 2.0.8; a development dependency |
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 production build publishes source maps
adequateThe build configuration emits source maps for production, so the original source, with its comments and structure, is downloadable by every visitor. Upload them to an error tracker and keep them off the public server instead.
| frontend/public/angular.json | frontend/public/angular.json:77 — source maps in a production build |
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 environment file is committed
adequate.env is 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .env | .env — committed environment file |
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
adequate8 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/build-on-push.yml | .github/workflows/build-on-push.yml:23 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/build-on-push.yml | .github/workflows/build-on-push.yml:28 — 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.
3 deserialisers that can run code
adequate3 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (PHP `unserialize`, Ruby `Marshal.load`). 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.
| src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/ace-builds/src-min-noconflict/mode-php.js | src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/ace-builds/src-min-noconflict/mode-php.js:1 — code-executing deserialiser |
| src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/ace-builds/src-min-noconflict/snippets/ruby.js | src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/ace-builds/src-min-noconflict/snippets/ruby.js:1 — code-executing deserialiser |
| src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/ace-builds/src-min-noconflict/snippets/ruby.js | src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/ace-builds/src-min-noconflict/snippets/ruby.js:1 — 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.
27 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate27 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.
| frontend/public/src/app/shared/event-header/purchase-context-header.component.ts | frontend/public/src/app/shared/event-header/purchase-context-header.component.ts:40 — HTML from a variable |
| src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/ace-builds/src-min-noconflict/ace.js | src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/ace-builds/src-min-noconflict/ace.js:1 — HTML from a variable |
| src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/ace-builds/src-min-noconflict/ace.js | src/main/webapp/alfio-admin-v1/bower_components/ace-builds/src-min-noconflict/ace.js:1 — 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.
11 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 4 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-18. 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 11 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 1.14.1. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
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.
| GHSA-wrjw-r3g5-6q6x | 2026-09-18: GHSA-wrjw-r3g5-6q6x (high), fixed in 2.0-M5-2609: Admin payments API updates transaction details for arbitrary reservation IDs across organizations due to a missing reservation ownership check |
| GHSA-3ffp-87rx-w9xc | 2026-09-18: GHSA-3ffp-87rx-w9xc (moderate), fixed in 2.0-M5-2609: Cross-Organisation Sponsor Scan via Missing Organisation Ownership Check |
| GHSA-gr52-5qp2-v2ww | 2026-09-18: GHSA-gr52-5qp2-v2ww (low), fixed in 2.0-M5-2609: Bypass Current Password Requirement for Password Change |
| GHSA-xrwj-22cq-6mh4 | 2026-09-18: GHSA-xrwj-22cq-6mh4 (moderate), fixed in 2.0-M5-2609: Bulk sponsor-scan endpoint lacks role restriction |
| GHSA-6fwc-8jjg-gpfj | 2026-09-18: GHSA-6fwc-8jjg-gpfj (moderate), fixed in 2.0-M5-2609: Promo code update authorizes body scope but mutates path target |
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 telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere
adequateNone of 2,163 readable files references an instrumentation, metrics or error-reporting library. If this system is in production, nobody learns that it broke from the system itself — they learn it from a customer. That is a reliability finding before it is an observability one.
| telemetry-scan | searched 2,163 tracked text files for 16 known instrumentation libraries; manifests for metrics, tracing and error-reporting families; locked dependencies for the packages that emit; 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 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 2,163 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.
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 2,149 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- 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 One contributor authored more than half of the commits in this history. Is that person 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 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 Java codebase, with JavaScript alongside (33% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Java in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in src/, frontend/, website/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (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/alfio-event/alf.io/f9a5d62)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 — 87 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 87 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 — 62
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 7,343 · top5 share 0.053 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 165 · per kloc 0.7 · lines read 235,525 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.295 · early test per code 0.032 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.316 · early delete per insert 0.156 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 55 · share 0.327 · with tests 18 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 1,566 · compat files 0 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 24 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 1 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 55 · active 12mo 5 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 55 · one off share 0.655 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 55 · top share more than half · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 14 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 8 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 6 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 208 · source 1,729 · test ratio 0.12 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 111 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 3,870 · low content share 0.044 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 6 · with tests 3 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 1 · test files 220 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 6 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 179 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 38 · days since lockfile changed 38 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 2 · ci configs 6 · product files 1,566 |
| 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 cb65e11..331a022 · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 4,505 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 678 · share of insertions 0.0005 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 25.74 · repeat share 0.16 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,216 · write once share 0.428 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 236,828 · files 26 · per kloc 0.32 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | JavaScript to TypeScript: the move is still under way: the new language's share rose in the last yearmigration JavaScript to TypeScript · new share now 0.345 · new share at start 0.0 |
| 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 2,163 |
| 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.container_runs_as_root | every shipped Dockerfile drops to a non-root user or builds on a non-root base imagedockerfiles 1 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 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.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 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 GPL-3.0class strong-copyleft · license GPL-3.0 |
| 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 98 · 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 103.5 · days since last tag 40 · commits last 90 days 56 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 25
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 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.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.release_markers | fewer than 100 commits in the last year |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.knowledge_silos | too few substantial top-level directories to read ownership |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for Java or JavaScript, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 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 |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 17 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version is only known to be at least 1.14.1 |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter A4ZR-NPYP-4JY1 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/A4ZRNPYP4JY1?via=badge)
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: 49.2authenticated: False |
| 8.8s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 15.6s | read the git history | commits: 4028tracked files: 2466 |
| 320.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 320.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 415.4s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 415.4s | deleting the working copy |
Total 415.4s ·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).