23b90b8 · 6,429 commits · 10,736 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Product & Engineering Maturity.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 13 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 03.60 The project says one person maintains it MAINTAINERS.md:12
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions AGENTS.md:135
- names OpenSSF README.md:3
- names CNCF README.md:37
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 8 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 3 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 | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 81% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑pkg/ingester/ingester.go is 4,088 lines, 32× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 126 lines. 9 files exceed 1,260 lines, the largest being 4,088. 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 | pkg/ingester/ingester.go:1 — 4,088 lines (32× median) |
| line-count | pkg/distributor/distributor.go:1 — 1,841 lines (14× median) |
| line-count | pkg/ruler/ruler.go:1 — 1,800 lines (14× median) |
| line-count | pkg/ring/kv/memberlist/memberlist_client.go:1 — 1,529 lines (12× median) |
| line-count | pkg/util/validation/limits.go:1 — 1,398 lines (11× 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 ↑The project says one person maintains it
adequateIts own files say so. Whatever the commit counts show, the project describes itself as depending on one person.
| MAINTAINERS.md | MAINTAINERS.md:12 — says it has a single maintainer |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑87 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatego.mod declares 87 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.
| direct-dependencies | go.mod — 87 declared |
| direct-dependencies | website/package.json — 1 declared |
| direct-dependencies | website/go.mod — 0 declared |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
API v1 and v2 have been served together for 34 months
adequatev2 first appeared in Jan 2024, and v1 is still in the code 34 months later. Two versions mean two surfaces to secure, document and support. Ask who still calls the old one, and whether retiring it is planned.
| vendor/github.com/prometheus-community/prom-label-proxy/injectproxy/routes.go | vendor/github.com/prometheus-community/prom-label-proxy/injectproxy/routes.go — v1 since Jan 2024 |
| vendor/github.com/prometheus-community/prom-label-proxy/injectproxy/routes.go | vendor/github.com/prometheus-community/prom-label-proxy/injectproxy/routes.go — v2 since Jan 2024 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
31 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate31 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Aug 2023. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| vendor/google.golang.org/protobuf/types/descriptorpb/descriptor.pb.go | vendor/google.golang.org/protobuf/types/descriptorpb/descriptor.pb.go — deprecated since Aug 2023 |
| vendor/github.com/google/s2a-go/internal/proto/v2/common_go_proto/common.pb.go | vendor/github.com/google/s2a-go/internal/proto/v2/common_go_proto/common.pb.go — deprecated since Aug 2023 |
| vendor/google.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/api/annotations/field_info.pb.go | vendor/google.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/api/annotations/field_info.pb.go — deprecated since Nov 2023 |
| vendor/google.golang.org/grpc/balancer/balancer.go | vendor/google.golang.org/grpc/balancer/balancer.go — deprecated since Jan 2024 |
| vendor/k8s.io/client-go/util/workqueue/delaying_queue.go | vendor/k8s.io/client-go/util/workqueue/delaying_queue.go — deprecated since Jan 2024 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest pre-release, v1.22.0-rc.3, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v1.21.1. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| 44fb10b5a | tag v1.22.0-rc.3 |
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 ↑7 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 | build-image/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | cmd/cortex/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | cmd/query-tee/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | cmd/thanosconvert/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.
8 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 3 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first8 of 350 locked dependencies match 13 published advisories in OSV, 4 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. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
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 go.mod settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| go.mod | go.mod — github.com/prometheus/prometheus v0.309.1: GHSA-8rm2-7qqf-34qm (high), fixed in 0.311.3 |
| go.mod | go.mod — go.etcd.io/etcd/client/pkg/v3 v3.5.17: GO-2026-6107 (high), fixed in 3.5.33 |
| go.mod | go.mod — github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4 v4.1.4: GHSA-mgcc-cww5-fp2q (high), fixed in 4.1.6 |
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.
5 workload settings can give a container the host, behind a chart value or in a stack built from source
adequate5 places run a container privileged or in the host's namespaces only when a Helm value switches them on, or in a compose file that builds the product from this repository, which is how it is developed rather than how it ships. Neither is on by default in what ships. Ask whether production sets the value or runs that stack.
| development/tsdb-blocks-storage-swift-single-binary/docker-compose.yml | development/tsdb-blocks-storage-swift-single-binary/docker-compose.yml:20 — host access behind a setting or in a local stack |
| development/tsdb-blocks-storage-swift-single-binary/docker-compose.yml | development/tsdb-blocks-storage-swift-single-binary/docker-compose.yml:32 — host access behind a setting or in a local stack |
| development/tsdb-blocks-storage-swift-single-binary/docker-compose.yml | development/tsdb-blocks-storage-swift-single-binary/docker-compose.yml:43 — host access behind a setting or in a local stack |
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
adequate1 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.
| build-image/Dockerfile | build-image/Dockerfile:20 — 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.
3 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate3 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| pkg/frontend/v2/frontend.go | pkg/frontend/v2/frontend.go:212 — outbound call without a timeout |
| pkg/frontend/v2/frontend.go | pkg/frontend/v2/frontend.go:213 — outbound call without a timeout |
| pkg/frontend/v2/frontend.go | pkg/frontend/v2/frontend.go:280 — outbound call without a timeout |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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.
2 of 10 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate2 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.
| development/tsdb-blocks-storage-swift-single-binary/docker-compose.yml | development/tsdb-blocks-storage-swift-single-binary/docker-compose.yml:10 — image without a version |
| development/tsdb-blocks-storage-swift-single-binary/docker-compose.yml | development/tsdb-blocks-storage-swift-single-binary/docker-compose.yml:21 — 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 (docs/architecture.md 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 342 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 A roadmap file is in the tree (docs/roadmap.md, last changed August 2025). A file is not a plan. Does it match the roadmap in the data room, and has the team delivered the last one it wrote?
- 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 Alert rules are defined in the repository. Who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Go codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in vendor/, pkg/, schemas/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (build-image/Dockerfile and 15 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/cortexproject/cortex/23b90b8)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 — 92 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 92 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 — 74
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 28,803 · top5 share 0.022 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 100 · per kloc 0.24 · lines read 415,968 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 2.101 · early test per code 0.727 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.481 · early delete per insert 0.489 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 193 · share 0.741 · with tests 143 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.003 · code files 8,249 · compat files 27 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 42 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 8 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.print_logging | raw prints are few, or outnumbered by logger callsprints 1 · logger calls 19 |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 17 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.alert_rules | alert rules are defined as codealert files 2 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 12 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 256 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 10.4 · window last 24 months · authors 342 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 342 · active 12mo 46 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 342 · directories 5 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 342 · one off share 0.52 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 342 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than three years ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 71 |
| 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 3 · joined 7 · regular last year 19 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 52 · window last 24 months · with tracked 34 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 36 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 452 · source 959 · test ratio 0.471 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 101 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 5,723 · low content share 0.012 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 36 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 561 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 36 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 1 · recent commits 922 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 8 · days since lockfile changed 13 |
| 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 1 · ci configs 36 · product files 8,249 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.119 · merges 42 · long lived 5 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.006 · commits 812 · over 2000 lines 5 |
| 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 59f0c02..d4f1c5a · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 4,659 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 368 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.49 · repeat share 0.025 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 734 · write once share 0.332 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0041 · product files 511 · distinct blocks 68,701 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 417,512 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 13 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 1,613 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.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.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 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 9,280 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 14 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 14 · 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.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 317 · added in two years 139 · removed within 60 days 5 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 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 9.5 · days since last tag 27 · commits last 90 days 80 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 18
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.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.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 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 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: 74 records name cortex with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2018-20226, CVE-2019-7652, CVE-2020-2020, …) |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; NVD: 74 records name cortex with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2018-20226, CVE-2019-7652, CVE-2020-2020, …) |
| 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 F079-FG3D-JKP4 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/F079FG3DJKP4?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: 414.8authenticated: False |
| 65.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 88.6s | read the git history | commits: 6429tracked files: 10736 |
| 304.7s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 304.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 432.9s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 432.9s | deleting the working copy |
Total 432.9s ·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).