48801fd · 645 commits · 1,187 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 7 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
- 1 finding about one contributor is withheld: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits; a buyer of this report reads them.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 32% 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
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
- deep scan blamed 1,182 of 1,182 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑apps/composer/views.py is 4,293 lines, 62× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 69 lines. 10 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,293. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | apps/composer/views.py:1 — 4,293 lines (62× median) |
| line-count | apps/calendar/views.py:1 — 1,857 lines (26× median) |
| line-count | apps/publisher/engine.py:1 — 1,705 lines (24× median) |
| line-count | apps/mcp/handlers.py:1 — 1,619 lines (23× median) |
| line-count | apps/analytics/tasks.py:1 — 1,568 lines (22× 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 ↑Nothing in the history is tagged as a release
adequateAcross 0.6 years of history there is not one tag. There may still be a deployment process, but this repository holds no record of what shipped when — which is the record a buyer needs to reconstruct an incident or a regression after the fact.
| tag-list | 0 tags across 645 commits and 206 days |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them. What a person adds here.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
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:14 — 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.
1 SQL statement built from strings
adequate1 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| apps/api/usage.py | apps/api/usage.py:101 — SQL built from a string |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 locked dependency has published vulnerabilities, 1 high or critical
adequate1 of 49 locked dependencies match 1 published advisories in OSV, 1 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: only the build reaches them: a bundler, a code generator, a build plugin, or a lockfile in a tooling directory.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| theme/static_src/package-lock.json | theme/static_src/package-lock.json — source-map-js 1.2.1: GHSA-68fv-2mgg-jv7q (high), fixed in 1.2.2; reached only by the 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.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| logging-scan | searched 925 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
5 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured The tree carries design documentation (development_specs/architecture.md). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverageNot rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them.
- Which of the people who wrote this are 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 No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Python codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in apps/, templates/, output/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 45% of added lines came through AI-declared commits. Does your organisation have a policy on inheriting and maintaining that code, and does your engineering team's tooling match how it was produced?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 3 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/brightbeanxyz/brightbean-studio/48801fd)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 — 97 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 97 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 — 72
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 1,217 · top5 share 0.082 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 6 · per kloc 0.04 · lines read 159,293 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 156 · share 0.577 · with tests 90 |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 0 · columns added last year 89 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 443 · compat files 0 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 2 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.print_logging | raw prints are few, or outnumbered by logger callsprints 0 · logger calls 295 |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 2 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 1 · config files 0 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 1 · floating 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 0 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 6 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations run at start, but as a single instance, where that is safesites 2 · scaled False |
| 03.knowledge_silos | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 62 · window last 24 months · with tracked 3 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 1 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 162 · source 602 · test ratio 0.269 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 583 · low content share 0.045 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 1 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 162 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 1 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 583 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 456 · days since lockfile changed 199 |
| 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 1 · product files 443 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.019 · merges 54 · long lived 1 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.041 · commits 532 · over 2000 lines 22 |
| 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 869 · share of insertions 0.0048 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 23.52 · repeat share 0.072 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,006 · write once share 0.553 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0044 · product files 440 · distinct blocks 42,815 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 160,211 · files 10 · per kloc 0.08 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 1 |
| 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 925 |
| 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 158,909 |
| 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.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 106 · irreversible 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 2 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 2 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 2 · stated in headers or notices 2 |
| 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 | the newer API version is recent; the old one may be on its way outmonths together 6 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 29 · added in two years 29 · removed within 60 days 1 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | 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 |
| 03.single_maintainer | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 05.project_advisories | no published advisory affects the surveyed versionaffecting 0 · exploited 0 · advisories 0 |
| 05.advisory_record | no advisory against the project in the last 24 monthscritical 0 · affecting 0 · could not tell 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 25
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | history too short to compare code and test growth |
| 04.churn_trend | history too short to read a churn trend |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 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 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two years |
| 04.releases_stopped | too few tagged releases to judge a cadence |
| 04.release_branch | too few release tags to tell |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter RDQW-H9AG-TQ3S 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/RDQWH9AGTQ3S?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: 13.5authenticated: False |
| 2.2s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 2.9s | read the git history | commits: 645tracked files: 1187 |
| 45.2s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 45.2s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 72.5s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 72.5s | deleting the working copy |
Total 72.5s ·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).