2e08c8d · 7,739 commits · 12,704 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 2 findings are worth checking first. 15 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions CONTRIBUTING.md:111
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.
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 40% 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 ↑apps/opik-backend/src/main/java/com/comet/opik/domain/TraceDAO.java is 5,697 lines, 113× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 50 lines. 70 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 5,697. 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 | apps/opik-backend/src/main/java/com/comet/opik/domain/TraceDAO.java:1 — 5,697 lines (113× median) |
| line-count | apps/opik-backend/src/main/java/com/comet/opik/domain/DatasetItemVersionDAO.java:1 — 4,899 lines (97× median) |
| line-count | sdks/python/src/opik/rest_api/datasets/raw_client.py:1 — 4,524 lines (90× median) |
| line-count | sdks/python/src/opik/rest_api/traces/raw_client.py:1 — 4,521 lines (90× median) |
| line-count | apps/opik-backend/src/main/java/com/comet/opik/domain/SpanDAO.java:1 — 3,761 lines (75× 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 · adequate · ratings ↑5% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate299 of 5704 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| git log --numstat | 299 commits over 2,000 lines |
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.
Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (.github/workflows/python_backend_e2e_tests.yml). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/python_backend_e2e_tests.yml | .github/workflows/python_backend_e2e_tests.yml:122 — 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 ↑103 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequateapps/opik-frontend/package.json declares 103 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.
| direct-dependencies | apps/opik-frontend/package.json — 103 declared |
| direct-dependencies | apps/opik-sandbox-executor-python/requirements.txt — 65 declared |
| direct-dependencies | apps/opik-python-backend/requirements.txt — 34 declared |
| direct-dependencies | sdks/typescript/package.json — 26 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.
Node.js 20 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 20 (end of life 2026-04-30). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2026-04-30. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| apps/opik-frontend/Dockerfile | apps/opik-frontend/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.
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 | apps/opik-python-backend/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.
59 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 31 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first59 of 1,281 locked dependencies match 153 published advisories in OSV, 71 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 apps/opik-frontend/package-lock.json and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| apps/opik-frontend/package-lock.json | apps/opik-frontend/package-lock.json — protobufjs 7.5.4: GHSA-xq3m-2v4x-88gg (critical), fixed in 7.5.5 |
| sdks/typescript/src/opik/configure/pnpm-lock.yaml | sdks/typescript/src/opik/configure/pnpm-lock.yaml — axios 1.13.4: GHSA-35jp-ww65-95wh (high), fixed in 1.16.0 |
| sdks/typescript/src/opik/configure/pnpm-lock.yaml | sdks/typescript/src/opik/configure/pnpm-lock.yaml — form-data 4.0.5: GHSA-hmw2-7cc7-3qxx (high), fixed in 4.0.6 |
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 workload setting give a container the host
adequate worth checking first1 places in the deployment configuration run a container privileged or in the host's network, process or IPC namespace. A compromise of that container is a compromise of the machine, and most acquirers' security reviews block it. Node agents (network, storage, monitoring) are excluded.
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 deployment/helm_chart/opik/values.yaml:429 settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| deployment/helm_chart/opik/values.yaml | deployment/helm_chart/opik/values.yaml:429 — privileged or host namespace |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The production build publishes source maps
adequateThe build configuration emits source maps for production, so the original source, with its comments and structure, is downloadable by every visitor. Upload them to an error tracker and keep them off the public server instead.
| apps/opik-frontend/vite.config.ts | apps/opik-frontend/vite.config.ts:57 — 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.
2 environment files are committed
adequateapps/opik-frontend/.env.comet, apps/opik-frontend/.env.production are tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| apps/opik-frontend/.env.comet | apps/opik-frontend/.env.comet — committed environment file |
| apps/opik-frontend/.env.production | apps/opik-frontend/.env.production — committed environment 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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate25 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. 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/backend_tests.yml | .github/workflows/backend_tests.yml:92 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/build_and_publish_sdk.yaml | .github/workflows/build_and_publish_sdk.yaml:137 — action pinned by tag |
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.
| apps/opik-frontend/src/lib/charts/vega.ts | apps/opik-frontend/src/lib/charts/vega.ts:458 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/opik-frontend/src/shared/InteractiveMermaidDiagram/InteractiveMermaidDiagram.tsx | apps/opik-frontend/src/shared/InteractiveMermaidDiagram/InteractiveMermaidDiagram.tsx:99 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/opik-frontend/src/shared/MermaidDiagram/MermaidDiagram.tsx | apps/opik-frontend/src/shared/MermaidDiagram/MermaidDiagram.tsx:19 — 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.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| logging-scan | searched 11,500 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
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.
Sends usage data to stats.comet.com by default
adequateapps/opik-backend/config.yml sends to stats.comet.com, and apps/opik-backend/config.yml 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.
| apps/opik-backend/config.yml | apps/opik-backend/config.yml:1008 — reports to stats.comet.com |
| apps/opik-backend/config.yml | apps/opik-backend/config.yml:1007 — 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.
Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 2 of 2 workloads
adequateBoth probes call the same endpoint. When a dependency slows down, the liveness probe fails with the readiness probe, so the platform restarts pods that only needed taking out of rotation, and a partial outage becomes a full one. Liveness should ask whether the process is alive; readiness whether it can serve.
| deployment/helm_chart/opik/values.yaml | deployment/helm_chart/opik/values.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
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
10 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 (apps/opik-documentation/documentation/fern/img/self-host/architecture.drawio and 2 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 174 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured 3,721 commits landed in the last year, against 2,350 the year before (+58%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- measured Experiment tracking is configured (comet_ml, wandb). Can the model that ships be tied to the run, data and code that produced it?
- measured No model card is in the tree. What is the model's intended use, what was it trained on, and where does it fail?
- 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 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 Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (deployment/helm_chart/opik/templates/clickhouse-backup-cronjob.yaml). Has a restore ever been rehearsed, and how long did it take?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a TypeScript codebase, with Python alongside (25% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in apps/, sdks/, tests_end_to_end/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 34% of added lines came through AI-declared commits. Does your organisation have a policy on inheriting and maintaining that code, and does your engineering team's tooling match how it was produced?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (apps/opik-backend/Dockerfile and 14 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/comet-ml/opik/2e08c8d)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 — 90 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 90 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 — 78
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 20,941 · top5 share 0.016 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 156 · per kloc 0.09 · lines read 1,689,702 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.799 · early test per code 0.274 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.485 · early delete per insert 0.31 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,461 · share 0.556 · with tests 812 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 3 · columns added last year 41 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 8,094 · 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 280 |
| 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 True · request id sites 385 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 2 · config files 0 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 5 · floating 0 |
| 06.single_replica | an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 1 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 7 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 6,897 · release commits 7 · changelog commits 70 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 2.1 · window last 24 months · authors 174 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 174 · active 12mo 136 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 174 · one off share 0.517 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 174 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 173 |
| 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 6 · joined 28 · regular last year 53 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 46 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 89 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,579 · source 10,670 · test ratio 0.242 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 10,137 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 7,739 · 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 89 · with tests 47 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 37 · test files 2,712 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 89 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.004 · reverts 23 · recent commits 6,084 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 12 · commits since 16 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 25 · ci configs 89 · product files 8,094 |
| 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 0 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.9 · repeat share 0.003 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 8,385 · write once share 0.436 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0221 · product files 8,092 · distinct blocks 496,322 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,701,022 · files 47 · per kloc 0.04 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 9 |
| 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 paths; the only other matches are expired or licence tokens or placeholders, which grant nothingnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 11,500 |
| 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_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture paths; the only other matches are expired or licence tokens or placeholders, which grant nothingpatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 3,150,089 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.resource_limits | every workload declares limitsworkloads 1 · without limits 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 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.dataset_provenance | little data is committeddata files 1 · licence or card files 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 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the historylive 1 · retired 1 · flags seen 2 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 31 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 339 · added in two years 245 · removed within 60 days 14 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 1,213 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 0 · on branch 663 · tags in window 663 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 12
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.notebook_outputs | too few notebooks |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm opik (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI opik_optimizer (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm opik (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm opik-ts (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm opik-gemini (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm opik-langchain (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm opik-openai (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm opik-otel (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm opik-vercel (an empty record for a package published here) did not |
| 05.advisory_record | 1 advisory in the last 24 months, none high or critical, none affecting the surveyed version; the newest on 2026-09-18 |
| 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 DEYM-X7VF-EBSA 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/DEYMX7VFEBSA?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: 824.7authenticated: False |
| 48.0s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 68.9s | read the git history | commits: 7739tracked files: 12704 |
| 460.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 460.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 741.5s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 741.5s | deleting the working copy |
Total 741.5s ·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).