d21ac06 · 28,135 commits · 14,564 files
Issued 2026-10-22
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Product & Engineering Maturity.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 8 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 73 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 40 high or critical in what ships
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 13% 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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 11 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑136 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatety/master/pyproject.toml declares 136 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 | ty/master/pyproject.toml — 136 declared |
| direct-dependencies | js_modules/ui-core/package.json — 49 declared |
| direct-dependencies | ty/airflow/pyproject.toml — 42 declared |
| direct-dependencies | python_modules/dagster/pyproject.toml — 32 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.
40 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate40 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Mar 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.
| python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/definitions/asset_selection.py | python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/definitions/asset_selection.py — deprecated since Mar 2023 |
| python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/definitions/schedule_definition.py | python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/definitions/schedule_definition.py — deprecated since Mar 2023 |
| python_modules/libraries/dagster-aws/dagster_aws/athena/resources.py | python_modules/libraries/dagster-aws/dagster_aws/athena/resources.py — deprecated since Apr 2023 |
| python_modules/libraries/dagster-aws/dagster_aws/redshift/resources.py | python_modules/libraries/dagster-aws/dagster_aws/redshift/resources.py — deprecated since Apr 2023 |
| python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/definitions/definitions_class.py | python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/definitions/definitions_class.py — deprecated since Apr 2023 |
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 ↑8 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 | python_modules/automation/automation/docker/images/buildkite-build-test-project-image/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | python_modules/automation/automation/docker/images/buildkite-integration-windows/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | python_modules/automation/automation/docker/images/dagster-celery-k8s-editable/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | python_modules/automation/automation/docker/images/dagster-celery-k8s/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.
73 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 40 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first73 of 3,114 locked dependencies match 149 published advisories in OSV, 88 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 ty/airflow/uv.lock and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| ty/airflow/uv.lock | ty/airflow/uv.lock — apache-airflow 2.11.2: GHSA-2943-9672-r45w (critical), fixed in 3.3.0 |
| python_modules/dagster-cloud/uv.lock | python_modules/dagster-cloud/uv.lock — certifi 2025.1.31: GHSA-6q48-6c7w-9gw2 (critical), fixed in 2026.10.19 |
| helm/dagster/schema/uv.lock | helm/dagster/schema/uv.lock — certifi 2026.4.22: GHSA-6q48-6c7w-9gw2 (critical), fixed in 2026.10.19 |
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 build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate2 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/build-docs.yml | .github/workflows/build-docs.yml:95 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/check-docs.yml | .github/workflows/check-docs.yml:18 — action pinned by tag |
| .buildkite/dagster-buildkite/dagster_buildkite/steps/dagster.py | .buildkite/dagster-buildkite/dagster_buildkite/steps/dagster.py:138 — 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 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-04-17. 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 1 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 14.2.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| GHSA-mjw2-v2hm-wj34 | 2026-04-17: GHSA-mjw2-v2hm-wj34 (high), fixed in 0.29.1: Dagster Vulnerable to SQL Injection via Dynamic Partition Keys in Database I/O Manager Integrations |
| GHSA-h7x8-jv97-fvvm | 2025-07-22: GHSA-h7x8-jv97-fvvm (moderate), fixed in 1.10.16: Dagster Local File Inclusion vulnerability |
| GHSA-q93c-p2mw-p23f | 2025-07-07: GHSA-q93c-p2mw-p23f (moderate), fixed in 1.5.11: Dagster vulnerable to Path Traversal attack through its /logs endpoint |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑One request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.
| request ids | no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
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.
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
5 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/docs/deployment/dagster-plus/hybrid/architecture.md). 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 650 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 2,419 commits landed in the last year, against 4,866 the year before (-50%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three.
- measured Experiment tracking is configured (mlflow, wandb). Can the model that ships be tied to the run, data and code that produced it?
- measured No model card is in the tree. What is the model's intended use, what was it trained on, and where does it fail?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 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?
- measured Infrastructure code (helm/dagster/Chart.yaml and 1 more) last changed 38 months before the newest commit, while 12,401 commits landed. Is the infrastructure now changed by hand? Compare the live account with the code.
- 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 Python codebase, with TypeScript alongside (37% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in python_modules/, js_modules/, ty/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (helm/dagster/.gitattributes and 152 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/dagster-io/dagster/d21ac06)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 — 96 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 96 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 78
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 65,637 · top5 share 0.008 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 3 · per kloc 0.08 · lines read 35,758 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.393 · early test per code 0.325 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.698 · early delete per insert 0.663 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,185 · share 0.418 · with tests 495 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.005 · code files 3,899 · compat files 21 |
| 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 48 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 3 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 61 · release commits 23 · changelog commits 84 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 8.5 · window last 24 months · authors 650 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 650 · active 12mo 117 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 650 · directories 7 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 650 · one off share 0.643 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 650 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed between three and six months ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 259 |
| 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 23 · joined 16 · regular last year 41 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 186 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 69 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,958 · source 6,813 · test ratio 0.434 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 3,961 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 28,024 · 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 69 · with tests 24 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 3,934 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 69 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.008 · reverts 60 · recent commits 7,313 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 145 · commits since 1 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 39 · ci configs 69 · product files 3,899 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.017 · commits 6,631 · over 2000 lines 111 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 21 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.0 · repeat share 0.007 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 4,405 · write once share 0.386 |
| 01.oversized_modules | no module is an outlier against this codebase's own normlargest 1,137 · threshold 1,000 · median lines 45 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 36,142 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 10 |
| 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 564 |
| 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.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 0 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 91 · irreversible 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.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.unsafe_html | raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.dataset_provenance | little data is committeddata files 2 · licence or card files 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 6 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 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 375 · added in two years 139 · removed within 60 days 1 |
| 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 | relicensed only between permissive licences: MIT → Apache-2.0 (2018-05-22)latest Apache-2.0 · weaker False · licence versions 2 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 7.0 · days since last tag 12 · commits last 90 days 321 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 589 · on branch 195 · tags in window 784 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 18
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 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 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | too few source files to look for duplication across them |
| 01.notebook_outputs | too few notebooks |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 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 PyPI dagit (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-cloud (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-graphql (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-pipes (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-webserver (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI create-dagster (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-airbyte (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-airflow (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-airlift (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-aws (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-azure (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-celery-docker (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-celery-k8s (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-celery (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-census (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI dagster-clickhouse-pandas (an empty record for a package published here) did not |
| 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 KKPX-R70D-E34S 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/KKPXR70DE34S?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: 1459.9authenticated: False |
| 97.2s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 177.8s | read the git history | commits: 28135tracked files: 14564 |
| 522.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 522.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 709.4s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 709.4s | deleting the working copy |
Total 709.4s ·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).