7e02d46 · 42,408 commits · 15,092 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 14 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md:37
- names Apache Software Foundation .github/SECURITY.md:28
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 05.26 22 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 32 high or critical in what ships
- 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 | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 15% 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 · adequate · ratings ↑6 base images float: no version, or `latest`
adequate6 of 28 `FROM` lines in product Dockerfiles name an image without a version, or with `latest`. Each build pulls whatever the registry serves that day, so the image that ships can change without a commit, and last month's build cannot be reproduced. Pin a version, or a digest.
| Dockerfile | Dockerfile:1402 — base image without a version |
| Dockerfile | Dockerfile:1407 — base image without a version |
| Dockerfile | Dockerfile:1408 — base 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.
airflow-core/src/airflow/jobs/scheduler_job_runner.py is 4,627 lines, 53× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 86 lines. 129 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,627. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | airflow-core/src/airflow/jobs/scheduler_job_runner.py:1 — 4,627 lines (53× median) |
| line-count | providers/google/src/airflow/providers/google/cloud/operators/dataplex.py:1 — 4,246 lines (49× median) |
| line-count | airflow-core/src/airflow/ui/openapi-gen/queries/queries.ts:1 — 3,763 lines (43× median) |
| line-count | airflow-core/src/airflow/models/taskinstance.py:1 — 3,719 lines (43× median) |
| line-count | devel-common/src/tests_common/pytest_plugin.py:1 — 3,414 lines (39× 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 · strong · ratings ↑Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (airflow-core/src/airflow/ui/src/components/FlexibleForm/FieldMultiType.test.tsx); 8 tests are individually marked to retry. A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| airflow-core/src/airflow/ui/src/components/FlexibleForm/FieldMultiType.test.tsx | airflow-core/src/airflow/ui/src/components/FlexibleForm/FieldMultiType.test.tsx:65 — test retry |
| airflow-core/tests/unit/jobs/test_scheduler_job.py | airflow-core/tests/unit/jobs/test_scheduler_job.py:13213 — test retry |
| airflow-core/tests/unit/ti_deps/deps/test_trigger_rule_dep.py | airflow-core/tests/unit/ti_deps/deps/test_trigger_rule_dep.py:1657 — test retry |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, 3.3.2, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is 2.0.0. 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.
| aa19d2dbb | tag 3.3.2 |
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 ↑11 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 | docker-stack-docs/docker-examples/extending/add-airflow-configuration/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker-stack-docs/docker-examples/extending/add-pypi-packages-constraints/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker-stack-docs/docker-examples/extending/add-pypi-packages-uv/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker-stack-docs/docker-examples/extending/add-pypi-packages/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.
22 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 32 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first22 of 2,820 locked dependencies match 97 published advisories in OSV, 57 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 uv.lock and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| uv.lock | uv.lock — pillow 12.3.0: GHSA-332p-7hrc-92wf (critical), fixed in 13.0.0 |
| airflow-core/src/airflow/ui/pnpm-lock.yaml | airflow-core/src/airflow/ui/pnpm-lock.yaml — dompurify 3.4.16: GHSA-cg2g-xh64-v4q7 (critical), fixed in 3.4.17 |
| uv.lock | uv.lock — kerberos 1.3.1: PYSEC-2017-49 (critical); an optional extra |
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 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate20 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| airflow-core/src/airflow/example_dags/example_retry_policy.py | airflow-core/src/airflow/example_dags/example_retry_policy.py:66 — outbound call without a timeout |
| airflow-core/src/airflow/example_dags/tutorial_objectstorage.py | airflow-core/src/airflow/example_dags/tutorial_objectstorage.py:85 — outbound call without a timeout |
| devel-common/src/sphinx_exts/extra_provider_files_with_substitutions.py | devel-common/src/sphinx_exts/extra_provider_files_with_substitutions.py:30 — outbound call without a timeout |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 SQL statement built from strings
adequate1 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| airflow-core/src/airflow/utils/db_cleanup.py | airflow-core/src/airflow/utils/db_cleanup.py:385 — 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.
2 shell commands built from strings
adequate2 places run a command through a shell (`shell=True`, `os.system`, `exec` with a template) rather than passing arguments. Where any part comes from outside, it is command injection. 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.
| airflow-core/src/airflow/example_dags/example_kubernetes_executor.py | airflow-core/src/airflow/example_dags/example_kubernetes_executor.py:93 — command run through a shell |
| airflow-core/src/airflow/example_dags/example_kubernetes_executor.py | airflow-core/src/airflow/example_dags/example_kubernetes_executor.py:131 — command run through a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
4 deserialisers that can run code
adequate4 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (pickle, `yaml.load` without a safe loader, Python `marshal`). 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.
| airflow-core/src/airflow/migrations/versions/0055_3_0_0_remove_pickled_data_from_dagrun_table.py | airflow-core/src/airflow/migrations/versions/0055_3_0_0_remove_pickled_data_from_dagrun_table.py:131 — code-executing deserialiser |
| devel-common/src/sphinx_exts/provider_yaml_utils.py | devel-common/src/sphinx_exts/provider_yaml_utils.py:90 — code-executing deserialiser |
| providers/google/src/airflow/providers/google/cloud/utils/mlengine_prediction_summary.py | providers/google/src/airflow/providers/google/cloud/utils/mlengine_prediction_summary.py:189 — code-executing deserialiser |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
7 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate7 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| airflow-core/src/airflow/ui/src/components/ReactMarkdownBlocks.tsx | airflow-core/src/airflow/ui/src/components/ReactMarkdownBlocks.tsx:163 — HTML from a variable |
| airflow-core/src/airflow/ui/src/components/ReactMarkdownBlocks.tsx | airflow-core/src/airflow/ui/src/components/ReactMarkdownBlocks.tsx:256 — HTML from a variable |
| devel-common/src/sphinx_exts/pagefind_search/static/js/search.js | devel-common/src/sphinx_exts/pagefind_search/static/js/search.js:149 — 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.
114 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 47 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-20. 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 6 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 2.0.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. PYSEC-2026-3988 (moderate), PYSEC-2026-3989 (moderate), GHSA-5247-m8w9-2v4m (moderate) and 35 more are fixed in the surveyed commit; which release carries them cannot be told from this history, which does not place the release users run. Answer lives in: the version you run. The record is incomplete: NVD: 3 records name airflow with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2024-28423, CVE-2025-54415, CVE-2026-5667).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| CVE-2026-86467 | 2026-10-20: CVE-2026-86467 (unrated): Apache Airflow Amazon provider: the AWS auth manager's SAML login flow does not bind the authentication response to the browser that began it. The login handler |
| CVE-2026-92228 | 2026-10-15: CVE-2026-92228 (moderate): The Apache Airflow Keycloak provider's multi-team provisioning (`_attach_team_permissions`) granted every team role global read access to audit logs. Deployment |
| CVE-2026-94134 | 2026-10-15: CVE-2026-94134 (critical): The Apache Airflow SSH provider hook disables SSH host-key verification by default: unless `host_key` is configured or `no_host_key_check` is explicitly set to |
| CVE-2026-94135 | 2026-10-15: CVE-2026-94135 (moderate): The Apache Airflow SFTP provider's deferrable code paths (`SFTPTrigger`, `SFTPHookAsync`, `SFTPClientPool`) disable SSH host-key verification by default unless |
| CVE-2026-96806 | 2026-10-15: CVE-2026-96806 (moderate): The Apache Airflow Keycloak auth manager did not end the session on logout: the logout route revoked the presented token, but `KeycloakJWTMiddleware` then issue |
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 ↑Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 3 of 5 workloads
adequateBoth probes call the same endpoint. When a dependency slows down, the liveness probe fails with the readiness probe, so the platform restarts pods that only needed taking out of rotation, and a partial outage becomes a full one. Liveness should ask whether the process is alive; readiness whether it can serve.
| chart/templates/api-server/api-server-deployment.yaml | chart/templates/api-server/api-server-deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| chart/templates/otel-collector/otel-collector-deployment.yaml | chart/templates/otel-collector/otel-collector-deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| chart/templates/statsd/statsd-deployment.yaml | chart/templates/statsd/statsd-deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
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 of 5 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate3 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.
| chart/kustomize-overlays/kerberos/kdc-deployment.yaml | chart/kustomize-overlays/kerberos/kdc-deployment.yaml:44 — image without a version |
| providers/cncf/kubernetes/src/airflow/providers/cncf/kubernetes/kubernetes_executor_templates/basic_template.yaml | providers/cncf/kubernetes/src/airflow/providers/cncf/kubernetes/kubernetes_executor_templates/basic_template.yaml:28 — image without a version |
| providers/cncf/kubernetes/src/airflow/providers/cncf/kubernetes/pod_template_file_examples/git_sync_template.yaml | providers/cncf/kubernetes/src/airflow/providers/cncf/kubernetes/pod_template_file_examples/git_sync_template.yaml:68 — 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
5 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 (airflow-core/docs/img/run_task_on_celery_executor.puml and 35 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 4,378 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured Experiment tracking is configured (neptune, tensorboard). Can the model that ships be tied to the run, data and code that produced it?
- measured No model card is in the tree. What is the model's intended use, what was it trained on, and where does it fail?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Python codebase, with TypeScript alongside (21% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in providers/, airflow-core/, task-sdk/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 26 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/apache/airflow/7e02d46)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 — 80
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 54,226 · top5 share 0.017 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 326 · per kloc 0.17 · lines read 1,889,118 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.901 · early test per code 0.517 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.518 · early delete per insert 0.581 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 3,498 · share 0.51 · with tests 1,783 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 0 · columns added last year 13 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.009 · code files 4,686 · compat files 40 |
| 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 165 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 157 |
| 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 34 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 1 · config files 0 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.single_replica | an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 8 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 3 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 3,032 · release commits 7 · changelog commits 180 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 12.0 · window last 24 months · authors 4,378 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 4,378 · active 12mo 912 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 4,378 · directories 21 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 4,378 · one off share 0.611 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 4,378 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 1,345 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 64 · joined 200 · regular last year 279 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 478 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 59 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 4,800 · source 9,442 · test ratio 0.508 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 10,697 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 41,292 · low content share 0.003 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 59 · with tests 12 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 3 · test files 5,066 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 59 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.007 · reverts 101 · recent commits 15,469 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 15 · commits since 0 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 75 · ci configs 59 · product files 4,686 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.021 · commits 13,648 · over 2000 lines 287 |
| 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 0c38536..fe58952 · bursts explained 2 · largest net added 12,488 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 5,023 · share of insertions 0.0008 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 18.29 · repeat share 0.004 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 5,686 · write once share 0.269 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0171 · product files 4,642 · distinct blocks 523,309 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,898,197 · files 69 · per kloc 0.05 |
| 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 9,112 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 252 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.006 · migrations 175 · irreversible 1 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.resource_limits | a LimitRange or ResourceQuota sets limits for every podworkloads 8 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.dataset_provenance | little data is committeddata files 0 · licence or card files 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 34 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on Apache-2.0license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 17 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 17 · stated in headers or notices 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.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the historylive 0 · retired 1 · flags seen 1 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 300 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 358 · added in two years 224 · removed within 60 days 7 |
| 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 (2015-03-14)latest Apache-2.0 · weaker False · licence versions 2 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 2,466 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 9
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 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.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.notebook_outputs | too few notebooks |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Python, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 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 25XJ-QGPD-ERVG 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/25XJQGPDERVG?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: 758.2authenticated: False |
| 73.5s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 140.9s | read the git history | commits: 42408tracked files: 15092 |
| 650.8s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 650.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 1004.4s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 1004.4s | deleting the working copy |
Total 1004.4s ·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).