f609cae · 3,414 commits · 4,432 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Significant: one contributor carries the recent work.
1 of 6 assessable dimensions carries significant findings, 4 are adequate and 1 is strong. 1 finding is worth checking first. 14 findings, each with its evidence: the commit, path and lines it rests on, or, when something is missing, what was looked for. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 03.1 Significant: Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
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 34 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 29 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 | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | significant findings | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 7% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑ui/src/api/v1/schema.ts is 22,867 lines, 150× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 152 lines. 28 files exceed 1,520 lines, the largest being 22,867. 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. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 86% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| line-count | ui/src/api/v1/schema.ts:1 — 22,867 lines (150× median) |
| line-count | ui/src/i18n/staticMessages.ts:1 — 7,861 lines (51× median) |
| line-count | internal/service/frontend/api/v1/dagruns.go:1 — 5,325 lines (35× median) |
| line-count | internal/service/coordinator/handler.go:1 — 3,832 lines (25× median) |
| line-count | internal/gitsync/service.go:1 — 3,477 lines (22× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · adequate · ratings ↑13% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate267 of 2026 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| git log --numstat | 267 commits over 2,000 lines |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (ui/playwright.config.ts). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| ui/playwright.config.ts | ui/playwright.config.ts:46 — test retry |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · significant findings · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
significant findingsIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 2,132 non-merge commits among 85 authors; across all history, more than half of 3,095. This is the single most expensive thing to discover after closing, and the repository cannot tell you whether that person is part of the transaction.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 2,132 commits; bus factor 1; 85 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 · adequate · ratings ↑104 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatego.mod declares 104 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 — 104 declared |
| direct-dependencies | ui/package.json — 49 declared |
| direct-dependencies | npm/dagu/package.json — 1 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.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑1 Dockerfile runs the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
| no-USER-instruction | 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.
34 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 29 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first34 of 1,870 locked dependencies match 130 published advisories in OSV, 56 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening ui/pnpm-lock.yaml settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| ui/pnpm-lock.yaml | ui/pnpm-lock.yaml — shell-quote 1.10.0: GHSA-pqg4-j6r4-53mv (critical), fixed in 1.11.0 |
| ui/pnpm-lock.yaml | ui/pnpm-lock.yaml — proxy-addr 2.0.7: GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h (critical), fixed in 2.0.8; a development dependency |
| ui/pnpm-lock.yaml | ui/pnpm-lock.yaml — @vue/server-renderer 3.5.29: GHSA-g2v6-rqmx-r4w6 (high), fixed in 3.5.42 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The production build publishes source maps
adequateThe build configuration emits source maps for production, so the original source, with its comments and structure, is downloadable by every visitor. Upload them to an error tracker and keep them off the public server instead.
| ui/webpack.dev.js | ui/webpack.dev.js:9 — source maps in a production build |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
5 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate5 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| ui/src/assets/js/prism.js | ui/src/assets/js/prism.js:3 — HTML from a variable |
| ui/src/assets/js/prism.js | ui/src/assets/js/prism.js:6 — HTML from a variable |
| ui/src/components/ui/mermaid-block.tsx | ui/src/components/ui/mermaid-block.tsx:78 — HTML from a variable |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
6 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-07-26. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 4 records name dagu with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-27598, CVE-2026-31882, CVE-2026-31886, …).
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-5m6c-38r8-5w76 | 2026-07-26: GHSA-5m6c-38r8-5w76 (moderate), fixed in v2.11.0: Incomplete fix of CVE-2026-33344 - the traversal guard is HTTP-only middleware, but the MCP service calls GetDAGSpec in-process, so arbitrary .yaml/.yml file re |
| GHSA-ph8x-4jfv-v9v8 | 2026-03-19: GHSA-ph8x-4jfv-v9v8 (high), fixed in v2.3.1: Incomplete fix for CVE-2026-27598: path traversal via %2F-encoded slashes in locateDAG |
| GHSA-9wmw-9wph-2vwp | 2026-03-13: GHSA-9wmw-9wph-2vwp (high): SSE Authentication Bypass in Basic Auth Mode |
| GHSA-m4q3-457p-hh2x | 2026-03-13: GHSA-m4q3-457p-hh2x (critical): Path Traversal via `dagRunId` in Inline DAG Execution |
| GHSA-6v48-fcq6-ff23 | 2026-02-21: GHSA-6v48-fcq6-ff23 (low): Path traversal in DAG creation allows arbitrary YAML file write outside DAGs directory |
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 ↑Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 4 of 5 workloads
adequateBoth probes call the same endpoint. When a dependency slows down, the liveness probe fails with the readiness probe, so the platform restarts pods that only needed taking out of rotation, and a partial outage becomes a full one. Liveness should ask whether the process is alive; readiness whether it can serve.
| charts/dagu/templates/coordinator-deployment.yaml | charts/dagu/templates/coordinator-deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| charts/dagu/templates/scheduler-deployment.yaml | charts/dagu/templates/scheduler-deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| charts/dagu/templates/worker-deployment.yaml | charts/dagu/templates/worker-deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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.
5 of 5 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate5 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.
| deploy/docker/compose.prod.yaml | deploy/docker/compose.prod.yaml:6 — image without a version |
| deploy/docker/compose.prod.yaml | deploy/docker/compose.prod.yaml:13 — image without a version |
| deploy/docker/compose.prod.yaml | deploy/docker/compose.prod.yaml:26 — 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.
1 of 6 deployments run a single replica
adequate1 deployments set `replicas: 1`, and nothing (an autoscaler, a disruption budget) adds more. Every deploy and every node drain is downtime, and the availability the buyer inherits has a ceiling.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| deploy/k8s/server-deployment.yaml | deploy/k8s/server-deployment.yaml — replicas: 1 |
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 (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 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- measured 1,568 commits landed in the last year, against 564 the year before (+178%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Go codebase, with TypeScript alongside (32% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in internal/, ui/, api/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 10 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/dagucloud/dagu/f609cae)If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
Rejection log — 90 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 90 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 75
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 10,088 · top5 share 0.029 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 9 · per kloc 0.01 · lines read 991,122 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.892 · early test per code 0.287 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.401 · early delete per insert 0.546 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 742 · share 0.69 · with tests 512 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 1,577 · compat files 0 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 30 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 127 |
| 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 29 |
| 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 154 · release commits 1 · changelog commits 35 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 121 · active 12mo 69 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 121 · directories 8 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 121 · one off share 0.537 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 121 · 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 85 |
| 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 11 · regular last year 15 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 25 · window last 24 months · with tracked 16 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 14 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,488 · source 3,056 · test ratio 0.487 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 342 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 3,182 · low content share 0.021 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 14 · with tests 4 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 2 · test files 2,619 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 14 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 3 · recent commits 2,132 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 4 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 3 · ci configs 14 · product files 1,577 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was merged pull requests, each developed and reviewed on its own branch (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 5aee496..afbcdfe · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 2,409 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 9,186 · share of insertions 0.0045 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 19.99 · repeat share 0.085 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,658 · write once share 0.258 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0072 · product files 1,568 · distinct blocks 316,532 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 995,418 · files 1 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 3 |
| 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 4,339 |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 70 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 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.resource_limits | every workload declares limitsworkloads 6 · without limits 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.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | the project is itself GPL-3.0, so copyleft components carry no obligation it has not already acceptedown license GPL-3.0 · copyleft components 1 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as GPL-3.0class strong-copyleft · license GPL-3.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 34 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 396 · added in two years 217 · 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 | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.5 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 634 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 23 · on branch 303 · tags in window 326 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 15
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 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.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Go, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV Go github.com/dagucloud/dagu/v2 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dagucloud/dagu-darwin-arm64 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dagucloud/dagu-darwin-x64 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dagucloud/dagu-linux-arm64 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dagucloud/dagu-linux-armv6 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dagucloud/dagu-linux-armv7 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dagucloud/dagu-linux-ia32 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dagucloud/dagu-linux-ppc64 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dagucloud/dagu-linux-s390x (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dagucloud/dagu-linux-x64 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dagucloud/dagu-win32-arm64 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dagucloud/dagu-win32-ia32 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dagucloud/dagu-win32-x64 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dagucloud/dagu (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 4 records name dagu with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-27598, CVE-2026-31882, CVE-2026-31886, …) |
| 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 RM15-H1WN-89GQ 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/RM15H1WN89GQ?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: 176.5authenticated: False |
| 15.1s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 28.4s | read the git history | commits: 3414tracked files: 4432 |
| 274.8s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 274.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 436.7s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 436.7s | deleting the working copy |
Total 436.7s ·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).