7d73e4b · 17,399 commits · 11,174 files
Issued 2026-10-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 4 raised something worth a question. 10 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md:8
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | 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 | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 16% 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 ↑1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`
adequate1 of 2 `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:1 — 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.
crates/ty_python_semantic/src/types/infer/builder.rs is 13,223 lines, 264× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 50 lines. 173 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 13,223. 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 94% 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 | crates/ty_python_semantic/src/types/infer/builder.rs:1 — 13,223 lines (264× median) |
| line-count | crates/ty_python_semantic/src/types.rs:1 — 12,373 lines (247× median) |
| line-count | crates/ty_ide/src/completion.rs:1 — 11,796 lines (235× median) |
| line-count | crates/ty_python_semantic/src/types/call/bind.rs:1 — 10,381 lines (207× median) |
| line-count | crates/ty_ide/src/inlay_hints.rs:1 — 7,906 lines (158× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · adequate · ratings ↑CI runs tests that cannot fail the build
adequate1 test command in CI ends in `|| true` or an equivalent, so the pipeline passes whatever the tests say. A green build then means the tests ran, not that they passed.
| .github/workflows/ci.yaml | .github/workflows/ci.yaml:417 — a test command that cannot fail |
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 ↑5 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate5 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Jul 2023. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| crates/ruff_python_stdlib/src/builtins.rs | crates/ruff_python_stdlib/src/builtins.rs — deprecated since Jul 2023 |
| crates/ruff_workspace/src/options.rs | crates/ruff_workspace/src/options.rs — deprecated since Oct 2023 |
| crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/numpy/rules/numpy_2_0_deprecation.rs | crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/numpy/rules/numpy_2_0_deprecation.rs — deprecated since Nov 2023 |
| crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pycodestyle/rules/type_comparison.rs | crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pycodestyle/rules/type_comparison.rs — deprecated since Nov 2023 |
| crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pylint/rules/invalid_index_return.rs | crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pylint/rules/invalid_index_return.rs — deprecated since Apr 2024 |
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 ↑1 Dockerfile runs 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 | 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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate1 step pipes a download straight into a shell. 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.
| Dockerfile | Dockerfile:21 — download piped into 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.
6 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 4 high or critical
adequate6 of 787 locked dependencies match 10 published advisories in OSV, 4 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. None of the high or critical ones is in what the product ships: they are development dependencies. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| uv.lock | uv.lock — anyio 4.14.1: GHSA-82r6-8w77-94w6 (critical), fixed in 4.14.2; a development dependency |
| uv.lock | uv.lock — urllib3 2.7.0: GHSA-8988-9cw3-xx77 (high), fixed in 2.8.0; a development dependency |
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — rand 0.8.5: GHSA-cq8v-f236-94qc (low), fixed in 0.8.6 |
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 vendored component with no licence
adequateThird-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| crates/ruff_db/src/vendored/path.rs | crates/ruff_db/src/vendored/path.rs — 1 tracked files, no licence 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.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑One request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.
| request ids | no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
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 No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 7,128 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured One contributor authored a quarter or more of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured A threat model is in the tree (agents/references/cli-threat-model.md). Does it name the assets this code actually handles, and is it current against the deployment?
- 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 Rust codebase, with Python alongside (34% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Rust in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in crates/, changelogs/, fuzz/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile). 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/astral-sh/ruff/7d73e4b)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 — 68
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 32,891 · top5 share 0.029 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 1,625 · per kloc 1.27 · lines read 1,278,173 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.488 · early delete per insert 0.663 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,183 · share 0.356 · with tests 421 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.004 · code files 3,578 · compat files 13 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 32 |
| 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 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 49 · release commits 3 · changelog commits 117 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 4.1 · window last 24 months · authors 934 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 934 · active 12mo 306 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 934 · directories 5 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 934 · one off share 0.608 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 934 · top share a quarter or more · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 497 |
| 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 31 · joined 49 · regular last year 80 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 1,667 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 22 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,571 · source 5,071 · test ratio 0.507 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 431 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 17,399 · low content share 0.0 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 22 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 2 · test files 3,746 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 19 · recent commits 8,008 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 40 · commits since 25 · days since lockfile changed 2 |
| 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 37 · ci configs 22 · product files 3,578 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.016 · commits 6,940 · over 2000 lines 112 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 394 · share of insertions 0.0001 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 19.44 · repeat share 0.003 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 3,437 · write once share 0.253 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0062 · product files 2,448 · distinct blocks 468,753 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,284,076 · files 16 · 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 6,306 |
| 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 3,981,588 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 0 |
| 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.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 775 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 375 · added in two years 181 · removed within 60 days 4 |
| 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 → BSD-3-Clause (2023-05-13) → MIT (2025-09-04)latest MIT · weaker False · licence versions 3 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 6.5 · days since last tag -5 · commits last 90 days 1,463 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release, 0.16.10, was made after the surveyed commit on the branch surveyedelsewhere 2 · on branch 428 · tags in window 431 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 26
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | tests are kept inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Rust: its logging setup is not read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for Rust: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.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 | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 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 PyPI ruff (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_annotate_snippets (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_cache (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_command_line (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_db (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_diagnostics (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_formatter (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_graph (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_index (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_linter (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_macros (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_markdown (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_memory_usage (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_notebook (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_options_metadata (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_ast (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_codegen (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_edits (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_formatter (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_importer (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_index (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_literal (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_parser (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_semantic (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_stdlib (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 PyPI ruff (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_annotate_snippets (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_cache (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_command_line (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_db (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_diagnostics (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_formatter (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_graph (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_index (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_linter (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_macros (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_markdown (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_memory_usage (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_notebook (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_options_metadata (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_ast (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_codegen (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_edits (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_formatter (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_importer (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_index (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_literal (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_parser (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_semantic (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ruff_python_stdlib (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 XVX9-BSWK-7QE4 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/XVX9BSWK7QE4?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-03 · shown | borehole 0.7.11 | 12 | adequate |
8 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 13 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 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 | authenticated: False |
| 55.3s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 97.2s | read the git history | commits: 17399tracked files: 11174 |
| 412.8s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 412.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 556.2s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 556.2s | deleting the working copy |
Total 556.2s ·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).