Borehole · Risk register · free tier

briefercloud/briefer

Free reading: not for reliance

2ee5e84 · 961 commits · 746 files
Issued 2026-10-23

Significant: one contributor carries the recent work.

1 of 6 assessable dimensions carries significant findings, 5 are adequate and 0 are strong. 2 findings are worth checking first. 19 findings, each with its evidence: the commit, path and lines it rests on, or, when something is missing, what was looked for. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.

What matters most

03.1 Significant: Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor

What the repository says about itself

04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

Worth checking first

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.

03.5 The contributor who wrote more than half of this has not committed here for more than a year
02.3 Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase

What this survey read. This commit may not be the product users run: The newest release, v0.0.113, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v0.0.112. 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.

4 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	significant findings
04	Product & Engineering Maturity	adequate
05	Security & Reliability Posture	adequate
06	Observability & Operations	adequate
07	Fit with the Acquirer	not assessable

strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository

Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating

0% of the code standing today was written in AI-declared commits

0% of lines still in the tree 0 of 485,757 0% of lines ever added these differ when early hand-written code has since been replaced

0/833 commits declaring an agent

confidence: moderate

2% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
no widespread author/committer date divergence
deep scan blamed 745 of 745 counted files

54,420 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 ↑

01.2

The repository begins with most of itself already written

adequate

The first commit carries 138,679 lines — 42% of every line ever added. Whatever happened before that commit happened somewhere this repository cannot show you, so the early history is not available as evidence of how the system was designed.

Evidence

09db294

2024-09-09T14:07:39+00:00; +138,679 across 541 files; subject: "It's time to build"

Respond to this finding

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

An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.

01.25

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

adequate

1 of 19 `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

data/mysql/ecommerce/Dockerfile data/mysql/ecommerce/Dockerfile:2 — 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.

A note that does not affect this rating

01.6

apps/web/src/components/v2Editor/index.tsx is 2,089 lines, 19× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 107 lines. 6 files exceed 1,070 lines, the largest being 2,089. 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	`apps/web/src/components/v2Editor/index.tsx:1` — 2,089 lines (19× median)
line-count	`apps/api/src/yjs/v2/index.ts:1` — 1,353 lines (12× median)
line-count	`apps/web/src/components/v2Editor/customBlocks/visualizationV2/VisualizationView.tsx:1` — 1,342 lines (12× median)
line-count	`packages/types/src/index.ts:1` — 1,285 lines (12× median)
line-count	`apps/web/src/components/v2Editor/customBlocks/sql/index.tsx:1` — 1,200 lines (11× 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 ↑

02.3

Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase

adequate worth checking first

9 test files against 512 source files (1.8%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.

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. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.

Evidence

test-file-ratio

9 test files / 512 source files

Respond to this finding

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

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · significant findings · ratings ↑

03.1

Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor

significant findings

In the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 833 non-merge commits among 26 authors; across all history, more than half of 833. This is the single most expensive thing to discover after closing, and the repository cannot tell you whether that person is part of the transaction.

Evidence

git shortlog -sn

last 24 months: top author more than half of 833 commits; bus factor 1; 26 authors

Respond to this finding

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

03.5

The contributor who wrote more than half of this has not committed here for more than a year

adequate worth checking first

One person authored more than half of 833 commits and has not committed here for more than a year, while the repository has kept moving. The concentration figure alone would not show this. Whoever is changing this code now is not the person who wrote most of it, which is the situation an acquirer is usually told they are avoiding. The history shows only that no commits of theirs landed here, not why.

Evidence

last-commit-by-top-author	last commit more than a year ago, measured to the survey
git shortlog -sn	top author more than half of 833 commits

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.

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · adequate · ratings ↑

04.3

116 direct dependencies in a single manifest

adequate

apps/web/package.json declares 116 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.

Evidence

direct-dependencies	`apps/web/package.json` — 116 declared
direct-dependencies	`apps/web/prod/package.json` — 113 declared
direct-dependencies	`apps/api/package.json` — 62 declared
direct-dependencies	`ai/requirements.txt` — 23 declared

Respond to this finding

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

04.19

4% of bug fixes add or change a test

adequate

Of 224 fixes in the last 24 months, 9 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.

Evidence

fix commits touching tests

9 of 224

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

04.17

Node.js 18 is past end of life

adequate

The code is pinned to Node.js 18 (end of life 2025-04-30). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2025-04-30. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.

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

Evidence

apps/api/Dockerfile apps/api/Dockerfile — Node.js 18, end of life 2025-04-30

Respond to this finding

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

04.62

Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

adequate

The newest release, v0.0.113, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v0.0.112. 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

761a9a8ba

tag v0.0.113

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 ↑

05.6

3 Dockerfiles run 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	`ai/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`data/mysql/ecommerce/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`data/psql/ecommerce/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

05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

5 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.

A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.

Evidence

.github/workflows/docker.yaml	`.github/workflows/docker.yaml:22` — action pinned by tag
.github/workflows/docker.yaml	`.github/workflows/docker.yaml:25` — action pinned by tag

Respond to this finding

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

05.13

2 outbound calls can wait forever

adequate

2 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.

Evidence

pypi/src/briefer/main.py	`pypi/src/briefer/main.py:142` — outbound call without a timeout
pypi/src/briefer/main.py	`pypi/src/briefer/main.py:147` — 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.

05.20

1 SQL statement built from strings

adequate

1 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.

Evidence

apps/api/src/python/writeback/psql.ts apps/api/src/python/writeback/psql.ts:191 — 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.

05.21

2 shell commands built from strings

adequate

2 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.

Evidence

docker/setup/setup.py	`docker/setup/setup.py:112` — command run through a shell
docker/setup/setup.py	`docker/setup/setup.py:113` — 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.

05.26

67 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 87 high or critical

adequate

67 of 1,996 locked dependencies match 154 published advisories in OSV, 87 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. 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.

Evidence

yarn.lock	`yarn.lock` — basic-ftp 5.0.5: GHSA-5rq4-664w-9x2c (critical), fixed in 5.2.0
yarn.lock	`yarn.lock` — next 13.5.5: GHSA-2464-fhr4-w9xw (critical), fixed in 15.5.28
yarn.lock	`yarn.lock` — tar 6.2.1: GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw (critical), fixed in 7.5.19

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 · adequate · ratings ↑

06.8

One request cannot be followed through the logs

adequate

Nothing 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.

Evidence

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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

06.9

No error reporter is wired in

adequate

Nothing 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.

Evidence

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.

06.33

1 of 5 deployments run a single replica

adequate

1 deployments set `replicas: 1`, and nothing (an autoscaler, a disruption budget) adds more. Every deploy and every node drain is downtime, and the availability the buyer inherits has a ceiling.

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

Evidence

chart/templates/postgres-statefulset.yaml chart/templates/postgres-statefulset.yaml — replicas: 1

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.

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

8 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 639 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it? Answer lives in: The team01.38
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 One contributor authored more than half of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it? 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

measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it? Answer lives in: The security owner05.43
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

measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed? Answer lives in: The operations team06.19
measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire? Answer lives in: The alerting tool and the on-call rota06.10
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 TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in apps/, assets/, packages/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
The repository carries deployment configuration (ai/Dockerfile and 7 more). 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/briefercloud/briefer.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/briefercloud/briefer/2ee5e84)

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 — 83 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 83 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 — 64

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 850 · top5 share 0.131
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 31 · per kloc 0.31 · lines read 98,687
04.churn_trend	rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.594 · early delete per insert 0.269
04.schema_churn	columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 3 · columns added last year 78
04.compat_layers	little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 503 · compat files 0
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 1
06.structured_logging	a structured logging library is referencedmatches 4
06.healthcheck_presence	a health or readiness check is defined
06.usage_reporting_default	the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0
06.deployed_image_floats	every deployed image names a versionimages 1 · floating 0
06.probes_identical	readiness and liveness are distinct, or not both setidentical 0 · workloads with both 1
06.environment_branching	environment differences live in configurationsites 0
06.release_markers	releases are markedtags last year 119 · release commits 108 · changelog commits 0
06.migrate_on_start	migrations do not run at container start
03.drive_by_contributors	a healthy share of contributors committed more than onceshare 0.385 · authors 26 · one commit authors 10
03.critical_path_ownership	more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 26
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 128 · window last 24 months · with tracked 2
02.ci_presence	CI configuration is present in the working treecount 3
02.release_cadence	tags are presenttags 119
02.conventional_commits	commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 833 · low content share 0.144
02.branch_protection_hints	process scaffolding is present in the repository
02.ci_runs_tests	CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 3 · with tests 1
02.ci_test_gating	no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 3
02.revert_share	change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 833
02.dependency_update_cadence	dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 14 · days since lockfile changed 138
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 4 · ci configs 3 · product files 503
02.long_lived_branches	the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.016 · merges 126 · long lived 2
02.commit_size	changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.012 · commits 803 · over 2000 lines 10
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.message_uniformity	commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 18.84 · repeat share 0.02
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 637 · write once share 0.411
01.swallowed_errors	errors are rarely thrown awayloc 99,260 · files 8 · per kloc 0.15
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 576
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 314,097
05.secrets_management_pattern	no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 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.resource_limits	every workload declares limitsworkloads 5 · without limits 0
05.privileged_workloads	no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0
05.credentials_in_deploy_config	deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0
05.public_env_secret	only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0
05.unsafe_html	raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 2
05.source_maps_shipped	production builds do not publish source mapssites 0
05.signing_material	no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0
05.license_vendored_unlicensed	no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0
05.license_grant_unclear	the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0
05.committed_native_libraries	no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0
04.api_versions_coexisting	one API version is served, or none
04.deprecations_lingering	few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 1
04.dependency_churn	few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 210 · added in two years 210 · removed within 60 days 9
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 1.5 · days since last tag 570 · commits last 90 days 0
03.single_maintainer	no file says one person maintains itstatements 0

Could not conclude, or did not apply — 19

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

Signal	Why
04.fix_share_trend	fewer than six busy quarters to compare
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
03.active_contributors	history too short to distinguish active from historical contributors
03.second_contributor_attrition	too little history
03.bus_factor_trend	fewer than three active years to compare
03.joiners_and_leavers	too few regular contributors to see a trend
02.skipped_tests	too few test files to judge how many are switched off
01.notebook_outputs	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.migration_reversibility	too few migrations to judge
05.cleartext_traffic	not a mobile app
05.dataset_provenance	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.license_copyleft_inherited	no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here
05.license_manifest_conflict	no packaging manifest states a licence
04.flags_accumulating	few or no feature flags in the history
05.project_advisories	record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV PyPI briefer (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 briefer (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 PGBE-0J23-VERW 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/briefercloud/briefer/2ee5e84.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/PGBE0J23VERW?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: 66.7authenticated: False
3.7s	cloned the repository to a temporary directory	depth: full
4.9s	read the git history	commits: 961tracked files: 746
52.8s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Trueread working tree: False
52.8s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
70.3s	kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
70.3s	deleting the working copy

Total 70.3s ·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