0435d8d · 9,734 commits · 2,178 files
Issued 2026-10-23
104 checks ran against this repository and none found a problem.
Commit history, review discipline, contributor concentration, debt markers, committed credentials and instrumentation were all examined and none of them raised a finding. That is a result about the repository, not an absence of one — the rejection log below lists every check and the numbers it saw, so a clean report can be argued with as easily as a critical one.
- 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 | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | not assessable | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 19% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- 35% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers
- deep scan blamed 2,167 of 2,167 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑implementations/rust/ockam/ockam_command/src/zone/zone_config.rs is 1,658 lines, 20× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 79 lines. 3 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 1,658. 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 | implementations/rust/ockam/ockam_command/src/zone/zone_config.rs:1 — 1,658 lines (20× median) |
| line-count | implementations/rust/ockam/ockam_core/src/api.rs:1 — 1,243 lines (15× median) |
| line-count | implementations/rust/ockam/ockam_api/src/ui/terminal/mod.rs:1 — 1,140 lines (14× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
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 ↑Effort is shifting from building to rewriting
adequateDeleted lines per line added rose from 0.63 to 0.79 between the first and second halves of this history. Rework is normal and often healthy, but a rising ratio means an increasing share of the team's time is spent replacing code that already exists rather than building what does not. Whether that is deliberate repayment or churn is a question for the team.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| deletions-per-insertion | first half 0.63, second half 0.79 (split 2022-06-18) |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 15 of 34 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. The findings below are what it could still read.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate1 third-party CI action is referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day; 3 steps pipe 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.
| .github/workflows/rust.yml | .github/workflows/rust.yml:410 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/release-draft-binaries.yml | .github/workflows/release-draft-binaries.yml:95 — 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.
49 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 27 high or critical
adequate49 of 961 locked dependencies match 94 published advisories in OSV, 27 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.
| implementations/elixir/ockam/ockam_cloud_node/mix.lock | implementations/elixir/ockam/ockam_cloud_node/mix.lock — grpc 0.9.0: GHSA-grp7-v8xh-rj7h (critical), fixed in 1.0.0 |
| implementations/elixir/ockam/ockam_cloud_node/mix.lock | implementations/elixir/ockam/ockam_cloud_node/mix.lock — cowboy 2.13.0: GHSA-jfc2-q6qh-g5x8 (high), fixed in 2.15.0 |
| implementations/elixir/ockam/ockam_cloud_node/mix.lock | implementations/elixir/ockam/ockam_cloud_node/mix.lock — cowlib 2.15.0: GHSA-84f2-rp86-235p (high), fixed in 2.16.1 |
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.
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 4 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
2 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 1,652 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 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 coverageNot rated: only 15 of 34 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read 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 coverageNot rated: only 4 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- 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 Elixir alongside (19% 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 implementations/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- 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/build-trust/ockam/0435d8d)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 — 100 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 100 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 — 55
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 10,414 · top5 share 0.034 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 425 · per kloc 1.74 · lines read 243,797 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 273 · share 0.234 · with tests 64 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.008 · code files 1,308 · compat files 10 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 2,121 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 3 · settings off 2 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | 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 |
| 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 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 10 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 20 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 429 · source 1,541 · test ratio 0.278 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 1,063 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 9,734 · 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 20 · with tests 3 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 25 · test files 270 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 20 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 1 · recent commits 1,452 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 6 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 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 11 · ci configs 20 · product files 1,308 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.022 · commits 1,252 · over 2000 lines 27 |
| 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 1 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 15.51 · repeat share 0.062 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,564 · write once share 0.217 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0108 · product files 1,308 · distinct blocks 112,449 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 2,121 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.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_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 2 · files with deprecations 14 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 380 · added in two years 109 · removed within 60 days 11 |
| 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 7.0 · days since last tag 479 · commits last 90 days 0 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 14 · on branch 167 · tags in window 181 |
| 03.single_maintainer | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 45
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.test_growth | Rust keeps unit tests inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, stay |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.knowledge_silos | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.dependency_pinning | no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile outside development, test and example paths |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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_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 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV crates.io ockam (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_abac (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_command (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_core (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_executor (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_identity (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_macros (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_node (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_transport_ble (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_transport_core (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_transport_tcp (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_transport_uds (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_transport_websocket (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_vault (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_vault_aws (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 crates.io ockam (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_abac (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_command (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_core (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_executor (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_identity (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_macros (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_node (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_transport_ble (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_transport_core (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_transport_tcp (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_transport_uds (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_transport_websocket (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_vault (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io ockam_vault_aws (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 11Z6-VZBE-Q9MS 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/11Z6VZBEQ9MS?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: 88.9authenticated: False |
| 11.0s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 22.2s | read the git history | commits: 9734tracked files: 2178 |
| 352.1s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 352.1s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 385.1s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 385.1s | deleting the working copy |
Total 385.1s ·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).