Borehole · Risk register · free tier

apache/flink-cdc

Free reading: not for reliance

9ea8bf0 · 1,722 commits · 2,414 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. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 9 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.

What the repository says about itself

04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
names Apache Software Foundation .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md:2
states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md:60
3 submodule(s) this survey does not read: docs/themes/book, .github/actions/get-workflow-origin, .github/actions/label-when-approved-action .gitmodules:1

What this survey read. This commit may not be the product users run: The newest release, release-3.7.0, is not on the branch this survey read. Read this report as describing that commit, not the release users run. Survey the release branch or tag as well.

Published under today's rules. The verification code attests to this reading as it was stored. This page differs from it as follows.

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	adequate
03	Organization & Key-Person Risk	strong
04	Product & Engineering Maturity	strong
05	Security & Reliability Posture	adequate
06	Observability & Operations	not assessable
07	Fit with the Acquirer	not assessable

strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository

Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating

1% of the code standing today was written in AI-declared commits

1% of lines still in the tree 4,563 of 499,451 1% of lines ever added these differ when early hand-written code has since been replaced

2% of lines added in the last 12 months (since 2025-10-23) arrived in AI-declared commits: 14/302 commits, confidence moderate. Also a floor.

14/1,722 commits declaring an agent · Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Opus 4.7, Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) and 2 more

confidence: moderate

12% 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 2,404 of 2,407 counted files

522 lines excluded as lockfiles, vendored or generated.

This is a lower bound. It counts what the repository declares. Undeclared AI authorship is invisible here, and a single rebase removes the trailers this rests on. Absence of a declaration is absence of disclosure, not absence of AI authorship.

Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance

01 · adequate · ratings ↑

01.25

1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`

adequate

1 of 1 `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.

Evidence

Dockerfile Dockerfile:18 — 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.

A note that does not affect this rating

01.6

flink-cdc-connect/flink-cdc-source-connectors/flink-connector-mysql-cdc/src/main/java/io/debezium/connector/mysql/MySqlStreamingChangeEventSource.java is 1,627 lines, 14× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 113 lines. 6 files exceed 1,130 lines, the largest being 1,627. 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.

Evidence

line-count	`flink-cdc-connect/flink-cdc-source-connectors/flink-connector-mysql-cdc/src/main/java/io/debezium/connector/mysql/MySqlStreamingChangeEventSource.java:1` — 1,627 lines (14× median)
line-count	`flink-cdc-connect/flink-cdc-source-connectors/flink-connector-oceanbase-cdc/src/main/java/io/debezium/connector/mysql/MySqlStreamingChangeEventSource.java:1` — 1,597 lines (14× median)
line-count	`flink-cdc-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/cdc/runtime/parser/JaninoCompiler.java:1` — 1,323 lines (11× median)
line-count	`flink-cdc-connect/flink-cdc-source-connectors/flink-connector-oracle-cdc/src/main/java/io/debezium/connector/oracle/logminer/processor/AbstractLogMinerEventProcessor.java:1` — 1,236 lines (10× median)
line-count	`flink-cdc-connect/flink-cdc-pipeline-connectors/flink-cdc-pipeline-connector-values/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/cdc/connectors/values/source/ValuesDataSourceHelper.java:1` — 1,229 lines (10× 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.

Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity

02 · adequate · ratings ↑

02.24

6% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines

adequate

32 of 559 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.

Evidence

git log --numstat

32 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.

A note that does not affect this rating

02.6

Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository

adequate

Of five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: CI workflows. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

process-scaffolding

1 of 5 markers present across 2,414 tracked files

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

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 ↑

A note that does not affect this rating

04.62

Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

adequate

The newest release, release-3.7.0, is not on the branch this survey read. 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.

Evidence

045e8da45

tag release-3.7.0

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.

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · adequate · ratings ↑

05.2

None of the standard security guard rails are configured

adequate

There is no disclosure policy, no automated dependency updates, no named code owners and no pre-commit configuration. None of these is load-bearing on its own. Their collective absence says that security posture here is whatever the current team happens to remember to do, which is not a posture that survives the team changing.

Evidence

guardrail-scan

checked 5 kinds of guard rail across 2,414 tracked files; 0 present

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.

05.6

1 Dockerfile runs the application as root

adequate

No 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.

Evidence

no-USER-instruction 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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

05.22

4 deserialisers that can run code

adequate

4 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (Java object streams). 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.

Evidence

flink-cdc-connect/flink-cdc-pipeline-connectors/flink-cdc-pipeline-connector-fluss/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/cdc/connectors/fluss/source/split/FlussSplitSerializer.java	`flink-cdc-connect/flink-cdc-pipeline-connectors/flink-cdc-pipeline-connector-fluss/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/cdc/connectors/fluss/source/split/FlussSplitSerializer.java:208` — code-executing deserialiser
flink-cdc-connect/flink-cdc-source-connectors/flink-cdc-base/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/cdc/connectors/base/utils/SerializerUtils.java	`flink-cdc-connect/flink-cdc-source-connectors/flink-cdc-base/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/cdc/connectors/base/utils/SerializerUtils.java:60` — code-executing deserialiser
flink-cdc-connect/flink-cdc-source-connectors/flink-cdc-base/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/cdc/connectors/base/utils/SerializerUtils.java	`flink-cdc-connect/flink-cdc-source-connectors/flink-cdc-base/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/cdc/connectors/base/utils/SerializerUtils.java:73` — 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.

05.65

1 advisory against this project in the last 24 months

adequate

The newest was published on 2025-10-09. 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 1 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history. 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.

Evidence

CVE-2025-62228

2025-10-09: CVE-2025-62228 (moderate): Apache Flink CDC version 3.4.0 was vulnerable to a SQL injection via maliciously crafted identifiers eg. crafted database name or crafted table name. Even throu

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.

Observability & Operations

06 · not assessable · ratings ↑

Not rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.

Fit with the Acquirer

07 · not assessable · ratings ↑

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.

Check it on the running system

3 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them. See the tiers.

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 1,294 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it? Answer lives in: The team01.38
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? Answer lives in: The team and the submodule owners01.35
Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product? Answer lives in: Your architects, with the product roadmap01.39
Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now? Answer lives in: The team's reasoning at the time01.40

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. Answer lives in: The code host's pull request data02.32
Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic? Answer lives in: The issue tracker: backlog, sprint history, estimate accuracy02.38
How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from? Answer lives in: Tickets, chat and postmortems02.37

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · partial coverage

measured 248 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing? Answer lives in: The deal terms03.29
Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure? Answer lives in: The team; review history only suggests candidates03.28
Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors? Answer lives in: Recruiting data and the org chart03.30
Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands? Answer lives in: HR data03.31
Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time. Answer lives in: Interviews and on-call history03.14
Does the team want to stay after close? Answer lives in: Interviews03.32
How are decisions made and disagreements resolved? Answer lives in: Time with the team03.33

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · minimal coverage

Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline? Answer lives in: The data room and the team's record of estimates04.32
Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it? Answer lives in: Budget and roadmap decisions04.31
Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story? Answer lives in: Revenue, customer and churn data04.33

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · partial coverage

What has actually broken, how often, and how badly? Answer lives in: Ticketing and chat05.41
What did external testing find, and was it fixed? Answer lives in: Reports in the data room05.42
What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence? Answer lives in: Audit reports; policy files in the tree are not evidence05.44

Observability & Operations

06 · partial coverage

Not rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.

Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered? Answer lives in: Pager history and dashboard logs06.29
Are the service-level objectives actually met? Answer lives in: Production metrics06.30
Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off? Answer lives in: Pager exports and interviews06.31
What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there? Answer lives in: Cloud billing and capacity plans06.32

Fit with the Acquirer

07 · none coverage

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.

This is primarily a Java codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Java in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in flink-cdc-connect/, flink-cdc-runtime/, flink-cdc-common/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first? 07.2
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? Answer lives in: Your architecture07.11
What will integration cost, and in what order? Answer lives in: The engagement07.12
Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom? Answer lives in: Your org design07.13
Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign? Answer lives in: Deal terms07.14
Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors? Answer lives in: Customer contracts07.15

Request a human assessment Download JSON Badge PDF

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.

[![Borehole](/badge/apache/flink-cdc.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/apache/flink-cdc/9ea8bf0)

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 — 94 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 94 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 — 58

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 6,735 · top5 share 0.021
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 28 · per kloc 0.06 · lines read 460,573
04.test_growth	test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.055 · early test per code 0.622
04.churn_trend	rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.224 · early delete per insert 0.301
04.fixes_with_tests	fixes usually come with a testfixes 214 · share 0.64 · with tests 137
04.fix_share_trend	fixing is not crowding out building
06.telemetry_presence	this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 2,278
06.structured_logging	not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.healthcheck_presence	not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.usage_reporting_default	the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0
06.migrate_on_start	migrations do not run at container start
03.contributor_concentration	no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 6.3 · window last 24 months · authors 248
03.active_contributors	more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 248 · active 12mo 69
03.drive_by_contributors	an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 248 · one off share 0.516
03.contributor_attrition	no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 248 · 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 110
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 9 · joined 15 · regular last year 19
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0
02.ci_presence	CI configuration is present in the working treecount 12
02.test_presence	tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 665 · source 1,840 · test ratio 0.361
02.release_cadence	tags are presenttags 47
02.conventional_commits	commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 1,722 · low content share 0.0
02.ci_runs_tests	CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 12 · with tests 1
02.skipped_tests	few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 20 · test files 781
02.ci_test_gating	no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 12
02.revert_share	change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 615
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 12 · product files 1,176
01.burst_import	no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000
01.initial_dump	first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 969 · share of insertions 0.0016
01.message_uniformity	commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 24.04 · repeat share 0.002
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 978 · write once share 0.449
01.swallowed_errors	errors are rarely thrown awayloc 462,721 · files 4 · per kloc 0.02
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 2,278
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 15 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 2
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.signing_material	no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0
05.license_copyleft_inherited	every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 6
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.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 3.5 · days since last tag 13 · commits last 90 days 82
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 — 36

Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.

Signal	Why
04.dependency_sprawl	no recognised dependency manifest found
04.eol_runtime	no pinned runtime version to check
04.schema_churn	no schema migrations to read
04.compat_layers	a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate
04.dependency_redundancy	no JavaScript manifest to read
06.telemetry_depth	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.print_logging	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.correlation_ids	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.error_reporting	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.alert_rules	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.deployed_image_floats	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.probes_identical	no Kubernetes probes
06.single_replica	no Kubernetes deployments
06.environment_branching	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.release_markers	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.feature_flags	no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere
02.dependency_update_cadence	no lockfile to date
02.long_lived_branches	too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none)
01.notebook_outputs	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.dependency_pinning	no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile
05.outbound_timeouts	not a running service
05.migration_reversibility	too few migrations to judge
05.sql_from_strings	not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job
05.resource_limits	no Kubernetes workload manifests
05.known_vulnerabilities	not assessed for Maven: this survey does not read their dependency files
05.public_env_secret	not a frontend
05.unsafe_html	not a frontend
05.source_maps_shipped	not a frontend
05.cleartext_traffic	not a mobile app
05.dataset_provenance	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.license_manifest_conflict	no packaging manifest states a licence
04.flags_accumulating	few or no feature flags in the history
04.api_versions_coexisting	not a running service
04.deprecations_lingering	a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users
04.dependency_churn	few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 days
05.project_advisories	could not tell whether 1 published advisory affects the surveyed code: its version could not be placed

Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 17T6-16G2-HXMG 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.

[![Borehole reading, not a certification](https://borehole.dev/badge/apache/flink-cdc/9ea8bf0.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/17T616G2HXMG?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: 51.7authenticated: False
4.1s	cloned the repository to a temporary directory	depth: full
7.3s	read the git history	commits: 1722tracked files: 2414
141.7s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Trueread working tree: False
141.7s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
216.2s	kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
216.2s	deleting the working copy

Total 216.2s ·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).

BOREHOLE 0.7.15 DETERMINISTIC LAYER · NO MODEL CALLSREAD ON BOREHOLE'S SERVER · CLONE DELETED TAKEDOWNCONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPOSITORY? YOUR RIGHTS