54343aa · 16,499 commits · 7,702 files
Issued 2026-10-04
Reads strong: 4 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Product & Engineering Maturity are adequate. 15 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
This repository reads strong. Show it in your README: the badge links to a page where anyone can check the reading. 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/MRPAQ2Q5MP55?via=badge)- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 1 credential-shaped match is withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 37% 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
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑packages/features/watchlist/lib/freeEmailDomainCheck/freeEmailDomains.ts is 4,769 lines, 128× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 37 lines. 26 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,769. 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 | packages/features/watchlist/lib/freeEmailDomainCheck/freeEmailDomains.ts:1 — 4,769 lines (128× median) |
| line-count | apps/api/v2/src/platform/event-types/event-types_2024_06_14/controllers/event-types.controller.e2e-spec.ts:1 — 3,193 lines (86× median) |
| line-count | packages/features/bookings/lib/service/RegularBookingService.ts:1 — 2,691 lines (72× median) |
| line-count | packages/features/bookings/repositories/BookingRepository.ts:1 — 2,174 lines (58× median) |
| line-count | packages/app-store/salesforce/lib/CrmService.ts:1 — 1,957 lines (52× 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 ↑Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (packages/platform/examples/base/playwright.config.ts); 1 test is individually marked to retry. A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| packages/platform/examples/base/playwright.config.ts | packages/platform/examples/base/playwright.config.ts:16 — test retry |
| apps/api/v2/test/jest.setup-e2e.ts | apps/api/v2/test/jest.setup-e2e.ts:1 — test retry |
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 · adequate · ratings ↑117 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequateapps/web/package.json declares 117 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.
| direct-dependencies | apps/web/package.json — 117 declared |
| direct-dependencies | apps/api/v2/package.json — 48 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/ui/package.json — 38 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/features/package.json — 25 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.
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.
Fixes are 70% of recent work, up from 46%
adequateIn the last two quarters 70% of commits were fixes, against 46% in the quarters before. Rising fix work usually means quality debt is coming due, and it takes time that new work would have had.
| fix share by quarter | 72%, 67%, 44%, 46%, 45%, 46%, 48%, 44% |
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.
Node.js 20 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 20 (end of life 2026-04-30). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2026-04-30. 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.
| Dockerfile | Dockerfile — Node.js 20, end of life 2026-04-30 |
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.
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.
8 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate8 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Mar 2022. 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.
| packages/lib/constants.ts | packages/lib/constants.ts — deprecated since Mar 2022 |
| packages/types/App.d.ts | packages/types/App.d.ts — deprecated since May 2022 |
| apps/web/lib/QueryCell.tsx | apps/web/lib/QueryCell.tsx — deprecated since Aug 2022 |
| apps/web/components/Loader.tsx | apps/web/components/Loader.tsx — deprecated since Sep 2022 |
| packages/app-store/_components/AppCategoryNavigation.tsx | packages/app-store/_components/AppCategoryNavigation.tsx — deprecated since Feb 2023 |
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 credential-shaped string in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings
adequateStrings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key.
| JWT | JWT, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
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.
2 Dockerfiles run 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 |
| no-USER-instruction | apps/api/v2/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 production build publishes source maps
adequateThe build configuration emits source maps for production, so the original source, with its comments and structure, is downloadable by every visitor. Upload them to an error tracker and keep them off the public server instead.
| apps/web/next.config.ts | apps/web/next.config.ts:239 — source maps in a production 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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate11 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; 1 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.
| .github/workflows/changesets.yml | .github/workflows/changesets.yml:36 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/e2e-api-v2.yml | .github/workflows/e2e-api-v2.yml:72 — action pinned by tag |
| scripts/vercel.sh | scripts/vercel.sh:7 — 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.
75 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 86 high or critical
adequate75 of 3,815 locked dependencies match 168 published advisories in OSV, 86 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.
| yarn.lock | yarn.lock — next 15.5.15: GHSA-2xp9-vwfh-vxw4 (critical), fixed in 15.5.24 |
| yarn.lock | yarn.lock — next 16.2.3: GHSA-2xp9-vwfh-vxw4 (critical), fixed in 16.3.3 |
| yarn.lock | yarn.lock — next-auth 4.24.13: GHSA-7rqj-j65f-68wh (critical), fixed in 4.24.15 |
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.
13 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate13 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| apps/web/app/(use-page-wrapper)/layout.tsx | apps/web/app/(use-page-wrapper)/layout.tsx:33 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/web/app/SpeculationRules.tsx | apps/web/app/SpeculationRules.tsx:28 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/web/components/PageWrapper.tsx | apps/web/components/PageWrapper.tsx:87 — HTML from a variable |
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.
Relicensed: MIT → AGPL-3.0 (2021-09-20) → MIT (2026-04-15)
adequateThe root licence changed 2 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".
| d769c3943 | LICENSE — MIT from 2021-03-22 |
| 5ad825544 | LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 from 2021-09-20 |
| ab21c7f80 | LICENSE — MIT from 2026-04-15 |
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.
4 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 4 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-01-13. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 1 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 6.2.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: its keyword search for 'cal com' is too broad to read whole (8,357 records).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| GHSA-7hg4-x4pr-3hrg | 2026-01-13: GHSA-7hg4-x4pr-3hrg (critical), fixed in >= 6.0.7: Authentication Bypass via Unvalidated Email in Custom JWT Callback |
| GHSA-qjx2-5xqp-cpf4 | 2025-12-07: GHSA-qjx2-5xqp-cpf4 (critical), fixed in >= 5.9.9: Cal.com affected by CVE-2025-55182 and CVE-2025-66478 |
| GHSA-9r3w-4j8q-pw98 | 2025-12-03: GHSA-9r3w-4j8q-pw98 (critical), fixed in 5.9.8: Authentication Bypass via bad TOTP + password checks |
| GHSA-vgj7-76cw-h6f8 | 2024-12-04: GHSA-vgj7-76cw-h6f8 (high): XSS via booking view questions |
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 · strong · ratings ↑3 of 3 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate3 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| docker-compose.yml | docker-compose.yml:15 — image without a version |
| docker-compose.yml | docker-compose.yml:28 — image without a version |
| docker-compose.yml | docker-compose.yml:122 — 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.
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 The tree carries design documentation (specs/_templates/design.md and 1 more). 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 coverage- measured 943 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- 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 05.1 and 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- 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 TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in packages/, apps/, agents/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 49% of lines added in the last 12 months (16% 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 6 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/calcom/cal.com/54343aa)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 — 88 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 88 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 21,934 · top5 share 0.032 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 366 · per kloc 0.48 · lines read 764,902 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.375 · early test per code 0.12 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.483 · early delete per insert 0.587 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 2,515 · share 0.268 · with tests 674 |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 0 · columns added last year 24 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 4,951 · 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 93 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 2 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 28 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 4 · config files 4 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 1 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 3 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 78 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 2 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 5.5 · window last 24 months · authors 943 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 943 · active 12mo 187 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 943 · directories 3 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 943 · one off share 0.613 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 943 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than a year ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 339 |
| 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 30 · joined 27 · regular last year 56 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 50 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 50 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 652 · source 5,590 · test ratio 0.117 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 624 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 16,054 · low content share 0.021 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 50 · with tests 6 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 31 · test files 681 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 50 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.012 · reverts 68 · recent commits 5,447 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 33 · days since lockfile changed 85 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 14 · ci configs 50 · product files 4,951 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.034 · commits 4,900 · over 2000 lines 165 |
| 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 1,854 · share of insertions 0.0006 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.73 · repeat share 0.086 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 5,992 · write once share 0.463 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0202 · product files 4,938 · distinct blocks 249,766 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 771,503 · files 11 · per kloc 0.02 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 4 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 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_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 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.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 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 MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | flags are retired about as fast as they are addedlive 0 · retired 7 · flags seen 7 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 321 · added in two years 147 · removed within 60 days 12 |
| 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.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.5 · days since last tag 217 · commits last 90 days 28 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 4 · on branch 590 · tags in window 594 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 16
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 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.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.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 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 |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: its keyword search for 'cal com' is too broad to read whole (8,357 records) |
| 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 MRPA-Q2Q5-MP55 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/MRPAQ2Q5MP55?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-04 · shown | borehole 0.7.13 | 18 | strong |
16 earlier (show)
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 18 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 18 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 18 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 18 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 18 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 18 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 18 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 18 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.0 | 21 | 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 — 3 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 | re-read from the facts kept at the last survey; nothing was cloned | facts version: 1d7c04ef8dca7905 |
| 93.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 93.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
Total 93.0s ·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).