Borehole · Risk register · free tier
calcom/cal.com
Free reading: not for reliance
Borehole badge for calcom/cal.com
54343aa · 16,499 commits · 7,702 files
Issued 2026-09-27

Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Product & Engineering Maturity.

100 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 5 raised something worth a question. 14 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.

What the repository says about itself
  • 05.60 Relicensed: MIT → AGPL-3.0 (2021-09-20) → MIT (2026-04-15) LICENSE
An earlier reading. This is the survey of 2026-09-27 by borehole 0.7.1, which is what its verification code attests to. A newer reading of the same commit exists: read the newest.
Published under today's rules. The verification code attests to this reading as it was stored. This page differs from it as follows.
  • Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
  • 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.
strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository
Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating
15% of added lines arrived in commits declaring an AI agent as co-author
The surviving-lines measurement was not run on this repository.
988/16,054 commits declaring an agent · Claude, Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Opus 4.5 and 10 more
confidence: low
  • 36% 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
564,098 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 ↑
01.6

packages/features/watchlist/lib/freeEmailDomainCheck/freeEmailDomains.ts is 4,769 lines, 128× this codebase's median file

adequate

The 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.

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 ↑
02.16

Tests are retried until they pass

adequate

The 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.

Evidence
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 ↑
04.3

117 direct dependencies in a single manifest

adequate

apps/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.

Evidence
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.

04.17

Node.js 20 is past end of life

adequate

The 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.

Evidence
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.

04.20

Fixes are 70% of recent work, up from 46%

adequate

In 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.

Evidence
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.

04.38

8 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago

adequate

8 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.

Evidence
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 ↑
05.1

1 credential-shaped string in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings

adequate

Strings 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.

Evidence
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.

05.6

2 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 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.

05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

11 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.

Evidence
.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.

05.26

71 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 85 high or critical

adequate

71 of 3,815 locked dependencies match 171 published advisories in OSV, 85 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.

Evidence
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.

05.48

13 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it

adequate

13 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.

Evidence
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.

05.49

The production build publishes source maps

adequate

The 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.

Evidence
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.

05.60

Relicensed: MIT → AGPL-3.0 (2021-09-20) → MIT (2026-04-15)

adequate

The root licence changed 2 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.

Evidence
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.

Observability & Operations

06 · adequate · ratings ↑
06.18

3 of 3 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`

adequate

3 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.

Evidence
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. 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
  1. 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. Answer lives in: The team01.38
  2. Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product? Answer lives in: Your architects, with the product roadmap01.39
  3. 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
  1. 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
  2. Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic? Answer lives in: The issue tracker: backlog, sprint history, estimate accuracy02.38
  3. How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from? Answer lives in: Tickets, chat and postmortems02.37

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · partial coverage
  1. measured 943 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing? Answer lives in: The deal terms03.29
  2. Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure? Answer lives in: The team; review history only suggests candidates03.28
  3. Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors? Answer lives in: Recruiting data and the org chart03.30
  4. Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands? Answer lives in: HR data03.31
  5. Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time. Answer lives in: Interviews and on-call history03.14
  6. Does the team want to stay after close? Answer lives in: Interviews03.32
  7. How are decisions made and disagreements resolved? Answer lives in: Time with the team03.33

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · minimal coverage
  1. 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
  2. Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it? Answer lives in: Budget and roadmap decisions04.31
  3. Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story? Answer lives in: Revenue, customer and churn data04.33

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · partial coverage
  1. 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. Answer lives in: The provider's console and audit log05.38
  2. 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
  3. What has actually broken, how often, and how badly? Answer lives in: Ticketing and chat05.41
  4. What did external testing find, and was it fixed? Answer lives in: Reports in the data room05.42
  5. 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
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered? Answer lives in: Pager history and dashboard logs06.29
  4. Are the service-level objectives actually met? Answer lives in: Production metrics06.30
  5. Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off? Answer lives in: Pager exports and interviews06.31
  6. 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.

  1. This is primarily a TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
  2. The bulk of this system sits in packages/, apps/, agents/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
  3. The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 6 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first? 07.2
  4. 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?
  5. Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired? Answer lives in: Your architecture07.11
  6. What will integration cost, and in what order? Answer lives in: The engagement07.12
  7. Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom? Answer lives in: Your org design07.13
  8. Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign? Answer lives in: Deal terms07.14
  9. Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors? Answer lives in: Customer contracts07.15

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 for calcom/cal.com
[![Borehole](/badge/calcom/cal.com.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/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.

Was this reading useful?
Rejection log — 86 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 86 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

SignalWhat it found
04.hotspot_concentration change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 22,171 · top5 share 0.031
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 48
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.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 21.78 · 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 0.0217 · product files 4,938 · distinct blocks 254,036
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
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
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
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 202 · commits last 90 days 39
04.release_branch the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 4 · on branch 620 · tags in window 624
03.single_maintainer no file says one person maintains itstatements 0
05.project_advisories no published advisory affects the surveyed versionaffecting 0 · exploited 0 · advisories 6
05.project_exploited no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0

Could not conclude, or did not apply — 14

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

SignalWhy
06.print_logginga frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's
06.alert_rulesno alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console
06.probes_identicalno Kubernetes probes
06.single_replicano Kubernetes deployments
06.feature_flagsno feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere
02.long_lived_branchestoo few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none)
01.notebook_outputsnot a data or machine-learning repository
05.outbound_timeoutsnot assessed for TypeScript, the main language here: this check's patterns read other languages only
05.migration_reversibilitytoo few migrations to judge
05.resource_limitsno Kubernetes workload manifests
05.cleartext_trafficnot a mobile app
05.dataset_provenancenot a data or machine-learning repository
05.license_copyleft_inheritedno 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_conflictno packaging manifest states a licence
BOREHOLE READING NOT A CERTIFICATION 1KCJ-V3RF-N7QQ 2026-09-27 · 54343AA BOREHOLE.DEV/VERIFY

Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 1KCJ-V3RF-N7QQ at borehole.dev/verify.

The code commits to the 103 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/calcom/cal.com/54343aa.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/1KCJV3RFN7QQ?via=badge)

Borehole reading 1KCJ-V3RF-N7QQ, not a certification

This commit has been surveyed 17 times

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.

ReadAssessorFindingsBand
2026-09-27 · shown borehole 0.7.1 17 adequate
16 other readings (show)
2026-10-04 borehole 0.7.13 18 strong
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
2026-09-26 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 — 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.

AtStepDetail
0.0s read repository metadata from the GitHub API authenticated: False
97.5s cloned the repository to a temporary directory depth: full
131.2s read the git history commits: 16499tracked files: 7702
380.7s ran the deterministic checks blame pass: Falseread working tree: False
380.7s recorded where this scan ran attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
492.5s kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
492.5s deleting the working copy

Total 492.5s ·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).

BOREHOLE 0.7.1 DETERMINISTIC LAYER · NO MODEL CALLSREAD ON BOREHOLE'S SERVER · CLONE DELETED TAKEDOWNCONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPOSITORY? YOUR RIGHTS