5522c6f · 21,569 commits · 3,058 files
Issued 2026-10-22
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 15 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
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.
- 05.26 71 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 56 high or critical in what ships
- 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 | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 7% 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 ↑1 model weight file committed directly to git
adequate1 model weight files are stored in git itself, not in LFS, DVC or a model hub. Every clone carries them, the history keeps every version for good, and nothing records which run or data produced them.
| extensions/vscode/models/all-MiniLM-L6-v2/onnx/model_quantized.onnx | extensions/vscode/models/all-MiniLM-L6-v2/onnx/model_quantized.onnx — weights in git |
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.
gui/src/pages/AddNewModel/configs/models.ts is 3,331 lines, 37× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 88 lines. 13 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,331. 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 | gui/src/pages/AddNewModel/configs/models.ts:1 — 3,331 lines (37× median) |
| line-count | packages/continue-sdk/python/api/openapi_client/api/default_api.py:1 — 2,207 lines (25× median) |
| line-count | core/index.d.ts:1 — 2,023 lines (22× median) |
| line-count | core/llm/index.ts:1 — 1,505 lines (17× median) |
| line-count | core/core.ts:1 — 1,461 lines (16× 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 ↑2 committed .only switches other tests off
adequate2 test files commit a focused `.only`, which runs that test and silently skips the rest of its suite. 53 skip markers across 27 of 518 test files. Each is a failure somebody chose to stop seeing; the question is whether anyone is tracking them.
| core/indexing/walkDir.test.ts | core/indexing/walkDir.test.ts:28 — committed .only: other tests do not run |
| extensions/vscode/e2e/tests/Edit.test.ts | extensions/vscode/e2e/tests/Edit.test.ts:79 — committed .only: other tests do not run |
| core/edit/lazy/deterministic.test.ts | core/edit/lazy/deterministic.test.ts:130 — skipped test |
| core/edit/lazy/deterministic.test.ts | core/edit/lazy/deterministic.test.ts:134 — skipped test |
| core/edit/lazy/deterministic.test.ts | core/edit/lazy/deterministic.test.ts:142 — skipped test |
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 · adequate · ratings ↑Regular contributors fell from 102 to 53 in a year
adequate77 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 34 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.
| regular contributors by year | 102 then 53; 77 stopped committing, 34 began |
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 · strong · ratings ↑2 pinned runtimes are past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 20 (end of life 2026-04-30); Python 3.9 (end of life 2025-10-31). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2025-10-31. 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.
| .node-version | .node-version — Node.js 20, end of life 2026-04-30 |
| manual-testing-sandbox/Dockerfile | manual-testing-sandbox/Dockerfile — Python 3.9, end of life 2025-10-31 |
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 | manual-testing-sandbox/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.
71 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 56 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first71 of 2,401 locked dependencies match 188 published advisories in OSV, 102 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 gui/package-lock.json and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| gui/package-lock.json | gui/package-lock.json — handlebars 4.7.8: GHSA-2w6w-674q-4c4q (critical), fixed in 4.7.9 |
| docs-site/package-lock.json | docs-site/package-lock.json — next 16.2.0: GHSA-2464-fhr4-w9xw (critical), fixed in 16.4.1 |
| binary/package-lock.json | binary/package-lock.json — tar 7.5.16: GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw (critical), fixed in 7.5.19 |
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.
| gui/vite.config.ts | gui/vite.config.ts:10 — source maps in a production build |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate16 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/auto-assign-issue.yaml | .github/workflows/auto-assign-issue.yaml:14 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/auto-assign-issue.yaml | .github/workflows/auto-assign-issue.yaml:20 — action pinned by tag |
| extensions/cli/scripts/install.sh | extensions/cli/scripts/install.sh:5 — 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.
1 SQL statement built from strings
adequate1 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| core/context/providers/PostgresContextProvider.ts | core/context/providers/PostgresContextProvider.ts:84 — 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.
13 shell commands built from strings
adequate13 places run a command through a shell (`shell=True`, `os.system`, `exec` with a template) rather than passing arguments. Where any part comes from outside, it is command injection. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| core/context/providers/GreptileContextProvider.ts | core/context/providers/GreptileContextProvider.ts:165 — command run through a shell |
| core/context/providers/GreptileContextProvider.ts | core/context/providers/GreptileContextProvider.ts:177 — command run through a shell |
| core/util/tts.ts | core/util/tts.ts:52 — command run through 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 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate4 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.
| gui/src/components/StyledMarkdownPreview/MermaidBlock.tsx | gui/src/components/StyledMarkdownPreview/MermaidBlock.tsx:99 — HTML from a variable |
| gui/src/pages/config/sections/ToolsSection.tsx | gui/src/pages/config/sections/ToolsSection.tsx:397 — HTML from a variable |
| manual-testing-sandbox/next-edit/next-edit-8-4-sol.ts | manual-testing-sandbox/next-edit/next-edit-8-4-sol.ts:321 — 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.
4 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.
| core/vendor/README.md | core/vendor/README.md — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| core/vendor/package-lock.json | core/vendor/package-lock.json — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| core/vendor/package.json | core/vendor/package.json — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| core/vendor/tree-sitter.wasm | core/vendor/tree-sitter.wasm — 1 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.
2 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-12. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 2 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 1.5.45. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 188 records name continue with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2022-50634, CVE-2023-45935, CVE-2024-2511, …).
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.
| CVE-2026-109560 | 2026-10-12: CVE-2026-109560 (high): Continue CLI (@continuedev/cli) through 1.5.47 contains a permission bypass vulnerability that allows attackers to run unapproved commands by chaining them afte |
| CVE-2026-76072 | 2026-08-24: CVE-2026-76072 (high): The Continue CLI applies an incomplete denylist as its only barrier to destructive shell commands when running unattended. In headless mode and auto mode the de |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · strong · ratings ↑An error reporter is installed but never initialised
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
9 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 1,890 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- 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 a quarter or more 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- measured 3,757 commits landed in the last year, against 7,300 the year before (-49%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three.
- 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 Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in extensions/, core/, gui/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (extensions/vscode/textmate-syntaxes/Dockerfile.tmLanguage and 1 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/continuedev/continue/5522c6f)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 — 70
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 9,978 · top5 share 0.048 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 235 · per kloc 0.56 · lines read 418,660 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.566 · early delete per insert 0.885 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 3,016 · share 0.227 · with tests 685 |
| 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 1,465 · compat files 0 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 17 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 4 |
| 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 23 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 7 · settings off 4 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 491 · release commits 6 · changelog commits 26 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 3.2 · window last 24 months · authors 501 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 501 · active 12mo 77 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 501 · directories 11 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 501 · one off share 0.503 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 501 · top share a quarter or more · top contributor last committed between three and six months ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 391 |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 4,382 · window last 24 months · with tracked 66 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 37 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 464 · source 1,891 · test ratio 0.245 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 848 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 16,266 · low content share 0.077 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 37 · with tests 8 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 37 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.006 · reverts 62 · recent commits 11,058 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 19 · commits since 11 · days since lockfile changed 44 |
| 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 10 · ci configs 37 · product files 1,465 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.026 · merges 2,457 · long lived 63 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.007 · commits 9,898 · over 2000 lines 65 |
| 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 c491eab..4207228 · bursts explained 2 · largest net added 7,177 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 60,884 · share of insertions 0.0221 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 19.67 · repeat share 0.243 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,670 · write once share 0.239 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0203 · product files 1,433 · distinct blocks 148,342 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 420,952 · files 13 · per kloc 0.07 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 1 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 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 2,401 |
| 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 pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 2,579,103 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.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.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 57 |
| 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.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 10 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 306 · added in two years 186 · removed within 60 days 22 |
| 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 125 · commits last 90 days 0 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 0 · on branch 239 · tags in window 239 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 20
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | tests are kept inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 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 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the repository itself is quiet |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_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 |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm @continuedev/cli (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 188 records name continue with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2022-50634, CVE-2023-45935, CVE-2024-2511, …) |
| 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 R34S-6XWG-S672 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/R34S6XWGS672?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: 852.1authenticated: False |
| 35.5s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 59.1s | read the git history | commits: 21569tracked files: 3058 |
| 342.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 342.6s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 426.7s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 426.7s | deleting the working copy |
Total 426.7s ·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).