8bbab72 · 17,538 commits · 4,354 files
Issued 2026-10-04
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Organization & Key-Person Risk.
100 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 11 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- The project does not take pull requests CONTRIBUTING.md:85
- 05.60 Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → Apache-2.0 (2022-08-11) LICENSE
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/pull_request_template.md:5
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.
- 05.45 14 workload settings give a container the host
- 6 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 5 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 | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 6% 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 ↑app/Http/Controllers/Api/ApplicationsController.php is 6,324 lines, 82× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 77 lines. 26 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 6,324. 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 | app/Http/Controllers/Api/ApplicationsController.php:1 — 6,324 lines (82× median) |
| line-count | app/Jobs/ApplicationDeploymentJob.php:1 — 5,856 lines (76× median) |
| line-count | bootstrap/helpers/shared.php:1 — 5,588 lines (72× median) |
| line-count | app/Http/Controllers/Api/DatabasesController.php:1 — 5,156 lines (66× median) |
| line-count | app/Http/Controllers/Api/ServicesController.php:1 — 3,413 lines (44× 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 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 6,692 non-merge commits among 498 authors; across all history, more than half of 13,832. In a project with 498 recent contributors and 6 years of history, that is a question about one person's role rather than a fragile team — but it is the question to ask.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 6,692 commits; bus factor 1; 498 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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑14 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. 3 other matchs 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.
| GitHub token | 5 cited: GitHub token, 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.
2 Dockerfiles run 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 | docker/coolify-helper/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/testing-host/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.
14 workload settings give a container the host
adequate worth checking first14 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 templates/compose/beszel-agent.yaml:10 and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| templates/compose/beszel-agent.yaml | templates/compose/beszel-agent.yaml:10 — privileged or host namespace |
| templates/compose/beszel.yaml | templates/compose/beszel.yaml:28 — privileged or host namespace |
| templates/compose/cloudflare-ddns.yaml | templates/compose/cloudflare-ddns.yaml:10 — 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.
3 environment files are committed
adequate.env.dusk.ci, .env.production, other/nightly/.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.
| .env.dusk.ci | .env.dusk.ci — committed environment file |
| .env.production | .env.production — committed environment file |
| other/nightly/.env.production | other/nightly/.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
adequate7 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; 5 steps pipe 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/claude.yml | .github/workflows/claude.yml:34 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/coolify-helper-next.yml | .github/workflows/coolify-helper-next.yml:37 — action pinned by tag |
| docker/coolify-helper/Dockerfile | docker/coolify-helper/Dockerfile:54 — 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.
Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → Apache-2.0 (2022-08-11)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".
| dbe82b3e7 | LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 from 2021-03-24 |
| 06a344c0d | LICENSE — Apache-2.0 from 2022-08-11 |
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.
77 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 52 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-27. 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 32 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 4.3.23. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 2 records name coolify with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-12815, CVE-2026-15507).
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-2026-100744 | 2026-09-27: CVE-2026-100744 (moderate): A flaw has been found in coollabsio Coolify up to 4.1.2. The affected element is an unknown function of the file app/Http/Middleware/CanUpdateResource.php of th |
| CVE-2026-100746 | 2026-09-27: CVE-2026-100746 (moderate): A vulnerability was found in coollabsio Coolify up to 4.1.0. This affects the function Github::redirect of the file /webhooks/source/github/redirect of the comp |
| CVE-2026-86117 | 2026-09-05: CVE-2026-86117 (critical): Coolify through 4.3.17 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in the OAuth callback handler that signs users into existing accounts based solely on ema |
| CVE-2026-84694 | 2026-09-02: CVE-2026-84694 (high): Coolify before 4.2.0 fails to properly escape environment variable key names in Docker commands executed over SSH on managed servers. Authenticated attackers ca |
| GHSA-chg4-63hm-xv9x | 2026-07-02: GHSA-chg4-63hm-xv9x (high), fixed in 4.0.0-beta.474: Authenticated RCE via SHELL_SAFE_COMMAND_PATTERN regression → host 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.
Observability & Operations
06 · strong · ratings ↑No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
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.
3 of 11 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate3 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| docker-compose-maxio.dev.yml | docker-compose-maxio.dev.yml:103 — image without a version |
| other/nightly/docker-compose.windows.yml | other/nightly/docker-compose.windows.yml:4 — image without a version |
| other/nightly/docker-compose.windows.yml | other/nightly/docker-compose.windows.yml:11 — image without a version |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
8 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 (.agents/skills/laravel-best-practices/rules/architecture.md and 8 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 05.5 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 PHP codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run PHP in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in app/, public/, resources/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (app/Livewire/Project/New/SimpleDockerfile.php and 12 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/coollabsio/coolify/8bbab72)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 — 89 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 89 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 9,783 · top5 share 0.048 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 12 · per kloc 0.02 · lines read 526,436 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.484 · early test per code 0.002 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.494 · early delete per insert 0.826 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 2,914 · share 0.299 · with tests 870 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 1,976 · compat files 1 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 13 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 1 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 56 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 8 · settings off 19 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 4 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 72 · release commits 6 · changelog commits 14 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 735 · active 12mo 252 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 735 · directories 11 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 735 · one off share 0.607 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 735 · 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 498 |
| 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 46 · joined 39 · regular last year 55 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 2,289 · window last 24 months · with tracked 52 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 16 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 935 · source 2,792 · test ratio 0.335 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 706 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 14,000 · low content share 0.11 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 988 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 16 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 20 · recent commits 6,692 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 3 · 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.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.012 · commits 6,242 · over 2000 lines 75 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was documentation and notebooks (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 76c0f72..592dd76 · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 6,704 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 12,479 · share of insertions 0.0079 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 27.19 · repeat share 0.172 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,939 · write once share 0.332 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0228 · product files 1,857 · distinct blocks 171,378 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 530,203 · files 19 · per kloc 0.09 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 7 |
| 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.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.known_vulnerabilities | no locked dependency has a published advisoryadvisories 0 · dependencies 192 · high or critical 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 24 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on Apache-2.0license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 1 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 1 · stated in headers or notices 1 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 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 7 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 241 · added in two years 38 · removed within 60 days 9 |
| 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 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 1.0 · days since last tag 12 · commits last 90 days 1,380 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 8 · on branch 689 · tags in window 697 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 19
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, stay |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for PHP: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for PHP, 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.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 2 records name coolify with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-12815, CVE-2026-15507) |
| 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 GQCH-25TH-6TFA 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/GQCH25TH6TFA?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-04 · shown | borehole 0.7.13 | 17 | adequate |
4 earlier (show)
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 17 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 3 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 | re-read from the facts kept at the last survey; nothing was cloned | facts version: 1d7c04ef8dca7905 |
| 14.7s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 14.7s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
Total 14.7s ·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).