c926bf1 · 7,197 commits · 5,073 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Product & Engineering Maturity.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 4 raised something worth a question. 14 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 22 October 2026.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- names OpenSSF README.md:5
- names Cloud Native Computing Foundation README.md:165
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
- The file and line of 3 credential-shaped matches are withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 69% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑pkg/proto/runtime/v1/runtimeconnect/dapr.connect.go is 3,047 lines, 26× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 117 lines. 9 files exceed 1,170 lines, the largest being 3,047. 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/proto/runtime/v1/runtimeconnect/dapr.connect.go:1 — 3,047 lines (26× median) |
| line-count | pkg/api/http/http.go:1 — 1,733 lines (14× median) |
| line-count | pkg/runtime/runtime.go:1 — 1,706 lines (14× median) |
| line-count | pkg/api/grpc/grpc.go:1 — 1,605 lines (13× median) |
| line-count | pkg/runtime/wfengine/state/state.go:1 — 1,561 lines (13× 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 bus factor fell from 3 to 1
adequateYear by year, newest first, the number of people who wrote half the changes was 1, 2, 3, 3. The team narrowed to one person, which is a different risk from one that always was: the code does not say why.
| bus factor by year | 1, 2, 3, 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.
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 | .build-tools/go.mod — 6 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.
21 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate21 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Nov 2020. 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.
| pkg/proto/runtime/v1/dapr.pb.go | pkg/proto/runtime/v1/dapr.pb.go — deprecated since Nov 2020 |
| pkg/proto/runtime/v1/appcallback.pb.go | pkg/proto/runtime/v1/appcallback.pb.go — deprecated since Nov 2020 |
| pkg/proto/operator/v1/operator.pb.go | pkg/proto/operator/v1/operator.pb.go — deprecated since Jan 2021 |
| pkg/proto/placement/v1/placement.pb.go | pkg/proto/placement/v1/placement.pb.go — deprecated since Jan 2021 |
| pkg/proto/common/v1/common.pb.go | pkg/proto/common/v1/common.pb.go — deprecated since Jan 2021 |
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 release, v1.19.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v1.16.0. 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.
| cd59bfba8 | tag v1.19.0 |
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 credential-shaped string in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings
adequateStrings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key. 2 other matchs set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
| JWT | JWT, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 workload setting can give a container the host, behind a chart value or in a stack built from source
adequate1 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.
| charts/dapr/charts/dapr_sidecar_injector/templates/dapr_sidecar_injector_deployment.yaml | charts/dapr/charts/dapr_sidecar_injector/templates/dapr_sidecar_injector_deployment.yaml: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.
6 dependencies float, and no lockfile is committed
adequateDependency versions are declared as ranges and no lockfile is committed, so a build today does not necessarily produce what a build last month produced. That matters twice over in a transaction: the thing being bought cannot be reproduced exactly, and a compromised upstream release arrives without anyone choosing to take it.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| unpinned | tests/apps/actorpython/requirements.txt:1 — >=1.9.0 |
| unpinned | tests/apps/actorpython/requirements.txt:2 — any version |
| unpinned | tests/apps/perf/workflowsapp/requirements.txt:1 — any version |
| unpinned | tests/apps/perf/workflowsapp/requirements.txt:2 — any version |
| unpinned | tests/apps/perf/workflowsapp/requirements.txt:3 — any 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.
2 credential-shaped strings exist in the history
adequateMatches for private key block were committed at some point across 5,319 commits examined. The files that held them are no longer in the working tree — but removal from a file is not removal from the history, and the history is what transfers with the asset. What matters is whether each was rotated after it was committed. The code cannot tell whether any of them is live, and that decides whether this matters: none sits in production configuration, and none is in a format its provider keeps for live keys. Is any of these live? Show that each was rotated after it was committed, and when. 1 other match set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| history | 2 cited: private key block pattern added here |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate18 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; 2 steps pipe a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/automerge.yaml | .github/workflows/automerge.yaml:26 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/backport.yaml | .github/workflows/backport.yaml:25 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/test-tooling.yml | .github/workflows/test-tooling.yml:51 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 locked dependency has published vulnerabilities
adequate1 of 526 locked dependencies match 1 published advisories in OSV. 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| go.mod | go.mod — github.com/go-chi/chi/v5 v5.3.2: GHSA-j6qf-3m9c-vwj3 (moderate), fixed in 5.4.0 |
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, 3 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-22. 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 1.16.0. 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-99h8-29cw-6j59 | 2026-10-22: GHSA-99h8-29cw-6j59 (high), fixed in 1.17.18: Operator discloses resources and secrets scoped to other apps |
| CVE-2026-59096 | 2026-07-02: CVE-2026-59096 (high): Dapr Sentry's OIDC discovery endpoint derives the issuer and jwks_uri of the /.well-known/openid-configuration document from the request Host, honoring an attac |
| GHSA-85gx-3qv6-4463 | 2026-04-16: GHSA-85gx-3qv6-4463 (high), fixed in 1.16.14: Dapr: Service Invocation path traversal ACL bypass |
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 5 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/dapr/charts/dapr_operator/templates/dapr_operator_deployment.yaml | charts/dapr/charts/dapr_operator/templates/dapr_operator_deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| charts/dapr/charts/dapr_placement/templates/dapr_placement_statefulset.yaml | charts/dapr/charts/dapr_placement/templates/dapr_placement_statefulset.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| charts/dapr/charts/dapr_scheduler/templates/dapr_scheduler_statefulset.yaml | charts/dapr/charts/dapr_scheduler/templates/dapr_scheduler_statefulset.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.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
9 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 1,144 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 349 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- 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 (charts/dapr/Chart.yaml and 7 more) last changed 18 months before the newest commit, while 972 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 Go codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in pkg/, cmd/, charts/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker/Dockerfile and 7 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/dapr/dapr/c926bf1)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 — 91 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 91 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 — 73
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 14,092 · top5 share 0.042 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 343 · per kloc 0.49 · lines read 696,471 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 2.775 · early test per code 1.261 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.488 · early delete per insert 0.427 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 366 · share 0.743 · with tests 272 |
| 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 979 · compat files 0 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 125 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 7 |
| 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 0 · logger calls 1,213 |
| 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.single_replica | an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 5 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 114 · release commits 4 · changelog commits 5 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 7.3 · window last 24 months · authors 349 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 349 · active 12mo 57 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 349 · directories 6 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 349 · one off share 0.524 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 349 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 83 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 7 · joined 7 · regular last year 16 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 396 · window last 24 months · with tracked 44 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 24 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,750 · source 3,668 · test ratio 0.75 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 451 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 5,383 · low content share 0.037 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 24 · with tests 9 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 3,693 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 24 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 2 · recent commits 1,384 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 19 · 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 3 · ci configs 24 · product files 979 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.095 · merges 84 · long lived 8 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.04 · commits 1,238 · over 2000 lines 50 |
| 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 1,191,700 · share of insertions 0.3254 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.14 · repeat share 0.056 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 988 · write once share 0.236 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0095 · product files 918 · distinct blocks 84,330 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 700,639 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 1 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | every shipped Dockerfile drops to a non-root user or builds on a non-root base imagedockerfiles 1 |
| 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.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 | a LimitRange or ResourceQuota sets limits for every podworkloads 5 |
| 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_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 400 · added in two years 98 · removed within 60 days 10 |
| 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: Apache-2.0 → MIT (2019-10-09) → Apache-2.0 (2021-11-30)latest Apache-2.0 · weaker False · licence versions 3 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.0 · days since last tag -1 · commits last 90 days 254 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 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 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 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.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.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_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 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 | could not tell whether 2 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version is only known to be at least 1.16.0 |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 51AM-4Q10-DQ76 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/51AM4Q10DQ76?via=badge)
5 pieces of evidence on this report quote the repository directly. Four checks quote text: up to five TODO-style comments, up to four commit subjects, up to five unpinned dependency lines and one status line from the README's first screen, such as “no longer maintained”. In each case the text is the evidence, which is why it is kept by default.
This rewrites every stored reading of this repository, and every later reading, including a re-read, is stored without the quoted text. The facts we keep to re-read it still hold the lines, as the privacy notice says. The pointers stay.
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-23 · shown | borehole 0.7.15 | 15 | adequate |
1 other reading (show)
| 2026-11-07 | borehole 0.7.16 | 16 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 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: 206.9authenticated: False |
| 12.3s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 21.1s | read the git history | commits: 7197tracked files: 5073 |
| 213.3s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 213.3s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 327.6s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 327.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 327.6s ·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).