994e539 · 25,849 commits · 8,256 files
Issued 2026-09-27
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance.
101 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 2 findings are worth checking first. 13 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.60 Relicensed: BSD-3-Clause → MIT (2014-11-06) → GPL-3.0 (2024-08-22) LICENSE
- 05.61 7 files are named as enterprise-edition code modules/git/tests/repos/repo5_pulls/objects/ee/469963e76ae1bb7ee83d7510df2864e6c8c640
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 2 findings rated significant by a check that has not yet held up in Borehole's calibration are now worth checking first.
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 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
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑routers/web/repo/issue.go is 3,886 lines, 42× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 92 lines. 30 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,886. 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.
| line-count | routers/web/repo/issue.go:1 — 3,886 lines (42× median) |
| line-count | modules/setting/disposable_email_domain_data.go:1 — 3,812 lines (41× median) |
| line-count | modules/emoji/emoji_data.go:1 — 3,405 lines (37× median) |
| line-count | routers/web/repo/pull.go:1 — 2,092 lines (22× median) |
| line-count | routers/api/v1/repo/action.go:1 — 1,996 lines (21× 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.
1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`
adequate1 of 3 `FROM` lines in product Dockerfiles name an image without a version, or with `latest`. Each build pulls whatever the registry serves that day, so the image that ships can change without a commit, and last month's build cannot be reproduced. Pin a version, or a digest.
| Dockerfile | Dockerfile:1 — base image without a version |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
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 ↑Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (playwright.config.ts). 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.
| playwright.config.ts | playwright.config.ts:32 — 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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: this repository belongs to a person rather than an organisation, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone the address 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 · adequate · ratings ↑107 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatego.mod declares 107 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 | go.mod — 107 declared |
| direct-dependencies | package.json — 74 declared |
| direct-dependencies | web_src/fomantic/package.json — 1 declared |
| direct-dependencies | .forgejo/testdata/build-release/go.mod — 0 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.
6 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate6 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Jan 2022. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
| modules/structs/org_team.go | modules/structs/org_team.go — deprecated since Jan 2022 |
| modules/structs/repo_branch.go | modules/structs/repo_branch.go — deprecated since Jan 2023 |
| routers/api/packages/chef/chef.go | routers/api/packages/chef/chef.go — deprecated since Feb 2023 |
| modules/structs/repo.go | modules/structs/repo.go — deprecated since May 2023 |
| routers/api/actions/artifact.pb.go | routers/api/actions/artifact.pb.go — deprecated since Mar 2024 |
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 Dockerfile runs the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
| no-USER-instruction | Dockerfile — runs as root |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
3 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate3 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
| modules/uri/uri.go | modules/uri/uri.go:32 — outbound call without a timeout |
| routers/web/auth/oauth.go | routers/web/auth/oauth.go:1290 — outbound call without a timeout |
| services/migrations/dump.go | services/migrations/dump.go:312 — outbound call without a timeout |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
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 SQL statements built from strings
adequate worth checking first49 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. Where any part of the string comes from a request, it is an injection point. Each site needs a look; the fix, parameters, is small.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening models/db/convert.go:30 settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| models/db/convert.go | models/db/convert.go:30 — SQL built from a string |
| models/db/convert.go | models/db/convert.go:40 — SQL built from a string |
| models/db/convert.go | models/db/convert.go:44 — SQL built from a string |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
16 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 11 high or critical
adequate worth checking first16 of 1,358 locked dependencies match 27 published advisories in OSV, 11 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.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening web_src/fomantic/package-lock.json settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| web_src/fomantic/package-lock.json | web_src/fomantic/package-lock.json — braces 2.3.2: GHSA-grv7-fg5c-xmjg (high), fixed in 3.0.3 |
| web_src/fomantic/package-lock.json | web_src/fomantic/package-lock.json — diff 1.0.8: GHSA-h6ch-v84p-w6p9 (high), fixed in 3.5.0 |
| web_src/fomantic/package-lock.json | web_src/fomantic/package-lock.json — lodash.pick 4.4.0: GHSA-p6mc-m468-83gw (high) |
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.
35 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate35 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.
| web_src/js/components/ActionJobStep.vue | web_src/js/components/ActionJobStep.vue:121 — HTML from a variable |
| web_src/js/components/ContextPopup.vue | web_src/js/components/ContextPopup.vue:122 — HTML from a variable |
| web_src/js/components/PullRequestMergeForm.vue | web_src/js/components/PullRequestMergeForm.vue:97 — 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: BSD-3-Clause → MIT (2014-11-06) → GPL-3.0 (2024-08-22)
adequateThe root licence changed 2 time(s). The latest terms restrict what users, hosts or a buyer may do in ways the earlier ones did not. Code taken under the old terms stays under them, so both matter in diligence.
| c61fa28f4 | LICENSE — BSD-3-Clause from 2014-03-25 |
| 4e7eb5be9 | LICENSE — MIT from 2014-11-06 |
| 94631ccef | LICENSE — GPL-3.0 from 2024-08-22 |
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.
7 files are named as enterprise-edition code
adequateFiles named `.ee.` are, by the common open-core convention, the paid edition's code, usually under a licence that is not open source even where the rest is. What the buyer may do with each part differs.
| modules/git/tests/repos/repo5_pulls/objects/ee/469963e76ae1bb7ee83d7510df2864e6c8c640 | modules/git/tests/repos/repo5_pulls/objects/ee/469963e76ae1bb7ee83d7510df2864e6c8c640 — enterprise-edition file |
| modules/markup/tests/repo/repo1_filepreview/objects/ee/2b1253d9cf407796e2e724926cbe3a974b214d | modules/markup/tests/repo/repo1_filepreview/objects/ee/2b1253d9cf407796e2e724926cbe3a974b214d — enterprise-edition file |
| modules/markup/tests/repo/repo1_filepreview/objects/ee/b243c3395e1921c5d90e73bd739827251fc99d | modules/markup/tests/repo/repo1_filepreview/objects/ee/b243c3395e1921c5d90e73bd739827251fc99d — enterprise-edition file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
5 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 5,218 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- 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: this repository belongs to a person rather than an organisation, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone the address names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them.
- 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 05.5 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 Go codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in modules/, options/, public/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 4 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/codeberg.org/forgejo+forgejo/994e539)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 — 71
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 32,889 · top5 share 0.03 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 362 · per kloc 0.43 · lines read 841,872 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.629 · early test per code 0.113 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.548 · early delete per insert 0.419 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,138 · share 0.632 · with tests 719 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 2,274 · compat files 1 |
| 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 2 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 1 |
| 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 13 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 43 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 17 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 months |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing year |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one person |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 1,812 · one off share 0.622 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matter |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical paths |
| 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 36 · joined 28 · regular last year 52 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 583 · window last 24 months · with tracked 481 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 14 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,331 · source 3,579 · test ratio 0.372 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 303 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 23,074 · low content share 0.023 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 14 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 19 · test files 2,866 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 14 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.005 · reverts 14 · recent commits 2,899 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 3 · commits since 9 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 2 · ci configs 14 · product files 2,274 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.025 · merges 569 · long lived 14 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.018 · commits 2,551 · over 2000 lines 45 |
| 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 4 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.59 · repeat share 0.099 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 4,996 · write once share 0.313 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0081 · product files 2,248 · distinct blocks 245,304 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 846,334 · files 3 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 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 4,569 |
| 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.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.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 2 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 1 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 1 · stated in headers or notices 1 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as GPL-3.0class strong-copyleft · license GPL-3.0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 375 · added in two years 131 · removed within 60 days 5 |
| 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 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 4.5 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 560 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 262 · on branch 41 · tags in window 303 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains it |
| 05.project_advisories | no published advisory affects the surveyed versionaffecting 0 · exploited 0 · advisories 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 17
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 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.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | no CI actions or pipe-to-shell installs to check |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Go, the main language here: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter ZEZT-2S09-TYXJ 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.
[](https://borehole.dev/verify/ZEZT2S09TYXJ?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-27 · shown | borehole 0.7.1 | 15 | adequate |
15 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 14 | 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 — 8 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 Codeberg API | authenticated: False |
| 30.0s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 70.1s | read the git history | commits: 25849tracked files: 8256 |
| 314.8s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 314.9s | withheld findings about one contributor: the owner is not known to be an organisation | withheld: 0 |
| 314.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 450.5s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 450.5s | deleting the working copy |
Total 450.5s ·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).