ec45097 · 13,311 commits · 4,136 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Significant: one contributor carries the recent work.
1 of 6 assessable dimensions carries significant findings, 3 are adequate and 2 are strong. 11 findings, each with its evidence: the commit, path and lines it rests on, or, when something is missing, what was looked for. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 03.1 Significant: Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 3 credential-shaped matches are 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 | significant findings | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 48% 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 ↑crates/tui/src/runtime_api/tests.rs is 26,101 lines, 105× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 248 lines. 105 files exceed 2,480 lines, the largest being 26,101. 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 | crates/tui/src/runtime_api/tests.rs:1 — 26,101 lines (105× median) |
| line-count | crates/tui/src/runtime_threads/tests.rs:1 — 24,344 lines (98× median) |
| line-count | crates/tui/src/runtime_threads.rs:1 — 21,152 lines (85× median) |
| line-count | crates/tui/src/lib.rs:1 — 20,597 lines (83× median) |
| line-count | crates/tui/src/config/tests.rs:1 — 17,318 lines (69× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · significant findings · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
significant findingsIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 7,128 non-merge commits among 252 authors; across all history, more than half of 7,128. This is the single most expensive thing to discover after closing, and the repository cannot tell you whether that person is part of the transaction.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 7,128 commits; bus factor 1; 252 authors |
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.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑9% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 3294 fixes in the last 24 months, 289 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| fix commits touching tests | 289 of 3294 |
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 ↑3 credential-shaped strings 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. 1 other match set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
| Slack token | 2 cited: Slack token, where fakes are usual |
| 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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate6 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/cargo-deny.yml | .github/workflows/cargo-deny.yml:36 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/ci.yml | .github/workflows/ci.yml:206 — action pinned by tag |
| web/public/install.sh | web/public/install.sh:14 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
4 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities
adequate4 of 816 locked dependencies match 4 published advisories in OSV. 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.
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — bincode 1.3.3: RUSTSEC-2025-0141 (unrated) |
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — zbus_names 3.0.0: RUSTSEC-2026-0371 (unrated) |
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — zvariant 4.2.0: RUSTSEC-2026-0370 (unrated) |
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.
9 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate9 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.
| extensions/vscode/src/chat.ts | extensions/vscode/src/chat.ts:1327 — HTML from a variable |
| web/app/[locale]/faq/page.tsx | web/app/[locale]/faq/page.tsx:746 — HTML from a variable |
| web/app/[locale]/install/page.tsx | web/app/[locale]/install/page.tsx:53 — 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.
3 vendored components with no licence
adequateThird-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| vendor/codewhale-design | vendor/codewhale-design — 5 tracked files, no licence file |
| web/vendor/legal-documents | web/vendor/legal-documents — 4 tracked files, no licence file |
| web/vendor/whale-character-v2 | web/vendor/whale-character-v2 — 6 tracked files, no licence 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.
13 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 12 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-07-16. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 13 records name Codewhale with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-45310, CVE-2026-45311, CVE-2026-45373, …).
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-6v2g-fpxh-pmmh | 2026-07-16: GHSA-6v2g-fpxh-pmmh (high), fixed in 0.8.41: SSRF bypass - TOCTOU on DNS failure for DNS pinning |
| GHSA-g29h-pfmp-qp9r | 2026-07-16: GHSA-g29h-pfmp-qp9r (high), fixed in 0.8.41: exec_shell_interact sends LLM-controlled input to a running shell without an approval prompt (privilege escalation) |
| GHSA-wrj3-vj8c-784f | 2026-07-16: GHSA-wrj3-vj8c-784f (high), fixed in 0.8.41: rlm_eval auto-approves arbitrary Python execution, bypassing the user's approval policy (RCE) |
| GHSA-62f5-cp2p-vq95 | 2026-07-16: GHSA-62f5-cp2p-vq95 (high), fixed in 0.8.41: Project config `instructions` override enables arbitrary file read into AI system prompt via cloned repository |
| GHSA-gx45-xrj5-g6c4 | 2026-07-16: GHSA-gx45-xrj5-g6c4 (high), fixed in 0.8.41: (CVE-2026-75911) Project config `allow_shell` override enables arbitrary shell command execution via cloned repository |
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 ↑Sends usage data to telemetry.codewhale.net by default
adequateconfig.example.toml sends to telemetry.codewhale.net, and config.example.toml leaves reporting on as shipped. Every installation reports to the vendor unless its operator turns this off. For a buyer running it inside their own product, that is an outbound data flow to a third party: ask what is sent, how often, and whether the buyer's customers were told.
| config.example.toml | config.example.toml:364 — reports to telemetry.codewhale.net |
| config.example.toml | config.example.toml:340 — the reporting setting is on by default |
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.
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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| 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
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 (docs/ARCHITECTURE.md and 7 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 One contributor authored more than half of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 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 Rust codebase, with TypeScript alongside (26% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Rust in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in crates/, web/, vendor/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 2 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/codewhale-hq/codewhale/ec45097)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 — 93 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 93 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 — 58
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 3,368 · top5 share 0.091 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 25 · per kloc 0.02 · lines read 1,557,121 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.426 · early delete per insert 0.192 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.008 · code files 1,837 · compat files 15 |
| 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 4 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 144 · release commits 69 · changelog commits 1,091 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 252 · one off share 0.44 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 252 · top share more than half · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 252 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 2,531 · window last 24 months · with tracked 416 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 31 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,150 · source 2,146 · test ratio 0.536 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 182 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 10,780 · low content share 0.0 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 31 · with tests 7 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 771 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 31 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 6 · recent commits 7,128 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 14 · commits since 2 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 8 · ci configs 31 · product files 1,837 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.0 · merges 1,378 · long lived 0 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.024 · commits 6,327 · over 2000 lines 152 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was a branch merged by a merge commit, developed on its own branch and landed in one piece (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays itlargest commits 8c9c8ee..cd9863f · bursts explained 18 · largest net added 6,914 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 42,089 · share of insertions 0.0109 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 18.41 · repeat share 0.027 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,331 · write once share 0.227 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0109 · product files 1,710 · distinct blocks 987,470 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 3 |
| 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.container_runs_as_root | every shipped Dockerfile drops to a non-root user or builds on a non-root base imagedockerfiles 2 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | plain HTTP is not allowed app-widesites 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 235 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 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.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 3.0 · days since last tag 16 · commits last 90 days 7,706 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 3 · on branch 141 · tags in window 144 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 35
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | Rust keeps unit tests inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Rust: its logging setup is not read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.correlation_ids | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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.environment_branching | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | history too short to distinguish active from historical contributors |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | too little history |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 04.flags_accumulating | the history scanned covers 4 months, less than the 12 this question needs |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | the history scanned covers 4 months, less than the 18 this question needs |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | the history scanned covers 4 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.dependency_churn | the history scanned covers 4 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | the history scanned covers 4 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV crates.io codewhale-agent (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-app-server (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-build-support (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-cloud-facts (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-command-contract (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-config (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-core (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-execpolicy (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-hooks (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-lane (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-localization (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-mcp (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-memory (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-models (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-palette (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-paths (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-protocol (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-release (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-runtime (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-sanitize (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-secrets (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-state (an empty record for a package published here), OSV crates.io codewhale-telemetry (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 13 records name Codewhale with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-45310, CVE-2026-45311, CVE-2026-45373, …) |
| 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 1428-ZV16-27YR 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/1428ZV1627YR?via=badge)
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 294.4authenticated: False |
| 63.3s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 138.4s | read the git history | commits: 13311tracked files: 4136 |
| 498.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 499.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 733.2s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 733.2s | deleting the working copy |
Total 733.2s ·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).