7656495 · 26,152 commits · 4,400 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Significant: one contributor carries the recent work.
1 of 6 assessable dimensions carries significant findings, 3 are adequate and 2 are strong. 1 finding is worth checking first. 14 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. Last commit 2 April 2026.
- 03.1 Significant: Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
- 05.61 Part of the code is under a separate licence: ee/ ee/LICENSE
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here may be significant, and 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.
- 04.3 164 direct dependencies in a single manifest
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 3 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 | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 2% 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
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑packages/amplication-client/src/models.ts is 4,460 lines, 143× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 31 lines. 13 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,460. 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 85% 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 | packages/amplication-client/src/models.ts:1 — 4,460 lines (143× median) |
| line-count | ee/packages/git-sync-manager/src/models.ts:1 — 4,311 lines (139× median) |
| line-count | libs/util/code-gen-types/src/models.ts:1 — 4,311 lines (139× median) |
| line-count | packages/amplication-cli/src/models.ts:1 — 4,311 lines (139× median) |
| line-count | packages/data-service-generator/src/models.ts:1 — 4,311 lines (139× 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.
7% of code blocks appear verbatim in more than one file
adequate7,526 distinct 8-line blocks appear in two or more files. Copy-paste is the cheapest thing a generator does and among the more expensive things to inherit: a fix has to be applied everywhere the block landed, and nothing in the repository records where that is. Tests, fixtures and documentation examples are excluded — those repeat by design — so this is duplication in code that ships. Blocks are matched after normalising whitespace and only across different files.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 66 files: packages/amplication-plugin-api/src/category/base/CategoryCountArgs.ts, packages/amplication-plugin-api/src/category/base/CategoryFindManyArgs.ts, packages/amplication-plugin-api/src/category/base/CategoryFindUniqueArgs.ts |
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 66 files: packages/amplication-plugin-api/src/category/base/CategoryCreateInput.ts, packages/amplication-plugin-api/src/category/base/CategoryListRelationFilter.ts, packages/amplication-plugin-api/src/category/base/CategoryOrderByInput.ts |
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 20 files: packages/amplication-plugin-api/src/util/BooleanFilter.ts, packages/amplication-plugin-api/src/util/BooleanNullableFilter.ts, packages/amplication-plugin-api/src/util/DateTimeFilter.ts |
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 17 files: packages/amplication-client/src/Blueprints/BlueprintRelationDelete.tsx, packages/amplication-client/src/Blueprints/DeleteBlueprint.tsx, packages/amplication-client/src/CustomProperties/CustomPropertyOptions/DeleteCustomPropertyOption.tsx |
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 17 files: packages/amplication-client/src/Blueprints/BlueprintRelationDelete.tsx, packages/amplication-client/src/Blueprints/DeleteBlueprint.tsx, packages/amplication-client/src/CustomProperties/CustomPropertyOptions/DeleteCustomPropertyOption.tsx |
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 ↑Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase
adequate329 test files against 3,440 source files (9.6%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.
| test-file-ratio | 329 test files / 3,440 source 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 · significant findings · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
significant findingsIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 1,796 non-merge commits among 19 authors; across all history, less than a quarter of 17,853. 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 more than half of 1,796 commits; bus factor 1; 19 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.
Regular contributors fell from 12 to 4 in a year
adequate8 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 1 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.
| regular contributors by year | 12 then 4; 8 stopped committing, 1 began |
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 ↑164 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequate worth checking firstpackage.json declares 164 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.
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 package.json and the 3 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| direct-dependencies | package.json — 164 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/data-service-generator/package.json — 68 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/data-service-generator/src/server/package-json/package.json — 28 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/generator-blueprints/package.json — 26 declared |
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.
20% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 385 fixes in the last 24 months, 76 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| fix commits touching tests | 76 of 385 |
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 pinned runtimes are past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 12 (end of life 2022-04-30); Node.js 18 (end of life 2025-04-30). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2022-04-30. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| packages/amplication-prisma-db/prisma/Dockerfile | packages/amplication-prisma-db/prisma/Dockerfile — Node.js 12, end of life 2022-04-30 |
| ee/packages/git-sync-manager/Dockerfile | ee/packages/git-sync-manager/Dockerfile — Node.js 18, end of life 2025-04-30 |
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 ↑9 Dockerfiles run 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 | ee/packages/git-sync-manager/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | packages/amplication-build-manager/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | packages/amplication-client/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | packages/amplication-prisma-db/prisma/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.
Part of the code is under a separate licence: ee/
adequateA directory named for a paid edition carries its own licence. That code is usually not open source even where the rest is; what the buyer may do with each part differs.
| ee/LICENSE | ee/LICENSE — licence: unrecognised |
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.
19 environment files are committed
adequate.env.docker-compose, ee/packages/git-sync-manager/.env, packages/amplication-build-manager/.env and more are tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .env.docker-compose | .env.docker-compose — committed environment file |
| ee/packages/git-sync-manager/.env | ee/packages/git-sync-manager/.env — committed environment file |
| packages/amplication-build-manager/.env | packages/amplication-build-manager/.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
adequate14 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/azure-static-web-apps.yml | .github/workflows/azure-static-web-apps.yml:48 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/ci.yml | .github/workflows/ci.yml:46 — 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.
Observability & Operations
06 · strong · ratings ↑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 1 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.
| libs/util/nestjs/tracing/docker-compose.aws-xray.yml | libs/util/nestjs/tracing/docker-compose.aws-xray.yml:18 — 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
7 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 The tree carries design documentation (docs/ERD.drawio and 3 more). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- 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 279 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- measured tutorials/ (less than a quarter of the files) has not changed in 18 months while the rest of the repository moved. Is that code finished, or abandoned, and who still knows how it works?
- 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- measured 28 commits landed in the last year, against 1,752 the year before (-98%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three.
- 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 TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in packages/, libs/, ee/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (.env.docker-compose and 22 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/amplication/amplication/7656495)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 — 89 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 89 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 16,840 · top5 share 0.036 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 12 · per kloc 0.04 · lines read 281,570 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.269 · early test per code 0.166 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.103 · early delete per insert 0.712 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 3,146 · compat files 1 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 38 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 9 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 5 |
| 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 10 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 279 · active 12mo 2 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 279 · directories 4 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 279 · one off share 0.444 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 279 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than six months ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 19 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 1,059 · window last 24 months · with tracked 1 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 17 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 281 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 18,359 · low content share 0.053 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 9 · test files 346 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 17 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 4 · recent commits 1,796 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 34 · days since lockfile changed 377 |
| 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 5 · ci configs 17 · product files 3,146 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.003 · commits 1,656 · over 2000 lines 5 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was a branch merged by a merge commit, developed on its own branch and landed in one piece (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 b83dc73..29e0aec · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 2,394 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 17,960 · share of insertions 0.0014 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 24.65 · repeat share 0.171 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 3,885 · write once share 0.108 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 285,370 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 20 |
| 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 3,849 |
| 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_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 12,777,307 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 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.unsafe_html | raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 2 |
| 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 4 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 284 · added in two years 19 · removed within 60 days 1 |
| 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 | relicensed only between permissive licences: MIT → Apache-2.0 (2020-10-20)latest Apache-2.0 · weaker False · licence versions 2 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 3.0 · days since last tag 208 · commits last 90 days 0 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 5 · on branch 245 · tags in window 250 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 23
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, stay |
| 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.release_markers | fewer than 100 commits in the last year |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the repository itself is quiet |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript, the language 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 |
| 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 npm @amplication/cli (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @amplication/code-gen-types (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 npm @amplication/cli (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @amplication/code-gen-types (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 6PV5-18MR-KY11 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/6PV518MRKY11?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: 332.1authenticated: False |
| 40.0s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 87.4s | read the git history | commits: 26152tracked files: 4400 |
| 329.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 329.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 485.2s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 485.2s | deleting the working copy |
Total 485.2s ·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).