83aa354 · 10,019 commits · 6,625 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 15 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 53 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 60 high or critical in what ships
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 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 |
- 16% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑2 base images float: no version, or `latest`
adequate2 of 5 `FROM` lines in product Dockerfiles name an image without a version, or with `latest`. Each build pulls whatever the registry serves that day, so the image that ships can change without a commit, and last month's build cannot be reproduced. Pin a version, or a digest.
| src/frontend/Dockerfile | src/frontend/Dockerfile:10 — base image without a version |
| src/frontend/platform/Dockerfile | src/frontend/platform/Dockerfile:10 — base 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.
src/backend/bisheng/knowledge/domain/services/knowledge_space_service.py is 5,072 lines, 55× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 91 lines. 49 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 5,072. 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 | src/backend/bisheng/knowledge/domain/services/knowledge_space_service.py:1 — 5,072 lines (55× median) |
| line-count | src/backend/bisheng/department/domain/services/department_service.py:1 — 3,336 lines (36× median) |
| line-count | src/frontend/client/src/types/chat/artifacts.ts:1 — 3,105 lines (34× median) |
| line-count | src/backend/bisheng/knowledge/domain/services/knowledge_service.py:1 — 2,933 lines (32× median) |
| line-count | src/backend/bisheng/channel/domain/services/channel_service.py:1 — 2,890 lines (31× 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 · 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 ↑107 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatesrc/frontend/client/package.json declares 107 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 | src/frontend/client/package.json — 107 declared |
| direct-dependencies | src/backend/pyproject.toml — 87 declared |
| direct-dependencies | src/frontend/platform/package.json — 69 declared |
| direct-dependencies | src/frontend/packages/ui/package.json — 13 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.
Node.js 20 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 20 (end of life 2026-04-30). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2026-04-30. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| src/frontend/Dockerfile | src/frontend/Dockerfile — Node.js 20, end of life 2026-04-30 |
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 ↑3 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 | src/backend/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | src/frontend/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | src/frontend/platform/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.
18 of 94 migrations cannot be rolled back
adequate18 schema migrations (19%) have no working way back: an empty `downgrade`, a `down` that does nothing, or a data migration with no reverse. A bad deploy that includes one is recovered from a backup, not reverted. Ask when a restore was last rehearsed.
| src/backend/bisheng/core/database/alembic/versions/v2_5_0_f011_backfill_create_knowledge_web_menu.py | src/backend/bisheng/core/database/alembic/versions/v2_5_0_f011_backfill_create_knowledge_web_menu.py:66 — migration with no way back |
| src/backend/bisheng/core/database/alembic/versions/v2_5_1_f012_merge_heads.py | src/backend/bisheng/core/database/alembic/versions/v2_5_1_f012_merge_heads.py:54 — migration with no way back |
| src/backend/bisheng/core/database/alembic/versions/v2_5_1_f025_merge_f024_heads.py | src/backend/bisheng/core/database/alembic/versions/v2_5_1_f025_merge_f024_heads.py:39 — migration with no way back |
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.
53 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 60 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first53 of 2,323 locked dependencies match 135 published advisories in OSV, 72 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 src/backend/uv.lock settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| src/backend/uv.lock | src/backend/uv.lock — anyio 4.11.0: GHSA-82r6-8w77-94w6 (critical), fixed in 4.14.2 |
| src/backend/uv.lock | src/backend/uv.lock — certifi 2025.10.5: GHSA-6q48-6c7w-9gw2 (critical), fixed in 2026.10.19 |
| src/backend/uv.lock | src/backend/uv.lock — chromadb 1.3.4: GHSA-36p7-vc44-83pf (critical) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate7 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day. 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/base_ci.yml | .github/workflows/base_ci.yml:34 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/base_ci.yml | .github/workflows/base_ci.yml:43 — action pinned by tag |
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.
29 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate29 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| src/backend/bisheng/core/cache/utils.py | src/backend/bisheng/core/cache/utils.py:420 — outbound call without a timeout |
| src/backend/bisheng/utils/docx_temp.py | src/backend/bisheng/utils/docx_temp.py:1579 — outbound call without a timeout |
| src/backend/bisheng/utils/file.py | src/backend/bisheng/utils/file.py:133 — outbound call without a timeout |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
4 SQL statements built from strings
adequate4 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 1 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| src/backend/bisheng/role/domain/services/role_service.py | src/backend/bisheng/role/domain/services/role_service.py:893 — SQL built from a string |
| src/backend/bisheng/database/models/tenant.py | src/backend/bisheng/database/models/tenant.py:519 — SQL built from a string |
| src/backend/bisheng/database/models/tenant.py | src/backend/bisheng/database/models/tenant.py:537 — SQL built from a string |
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.
7 deserialisers that can run code
adequate7 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (`yaml.load` without a safe loader, pickle). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| src/backend/bisheng/common/utils/markdown_cmpnt/md_to_docx/utils/yaml_utils.py | src/backend/bisheng/common/utils/markdown_cmpnt/md_to_docx/utils/yaml_utils.py:7 — code-executing deserialiser |
| src/backend/bisheng/core/cache/redis_conn.py | src/backend/bisheng/core/cache/redis_conn.py:182 — code-executing deserialiser |
| src/backend/bisheng/core/cache/redis_conn.py | src/backend/bisheng/core/cache/redis_conn.py:192 — code-executing deserialiser |
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.
20 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate20 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.
| src/frontend/client/src/components/Artifacts/Mermaid.tsx | src/frontend/client/src/components/Artifacts/Mermaid.tsx:60 — HTML from a variable |
| src/frontend/client/src/components/Banners/Banner.tsx | src/frontend/client/src/components/Banners/Banner.tsx:38 — HTML from a variable |
| src/frontend/client/src/components/Chat/Messages/Content/Mermaid.tsx | src/frontend/client/src/components/Chat/Messages/Content/Mermaid.tsx:81 — 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, 6 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-15. 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 6 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 2.6.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 5 records name bisheng with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2022-48230, CVE-2022-48255, CVE-2022-48259, …).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| CVE-2026-111363 | 2026-10-15: CVE-2026-111363 (high): BISHENG through 3.0.0-beta4 contains an insecure direct object reference vulnerability that allows authenticated low-privileged users to read other users' parse |
| CVE-2026-51859 | 2026-09-30: CVE-2026-51859 (critical): bisheng 2.3.0, 2.4.0, and 2.4.0-beta1 is vulnerable to directory traversal in save_download_file (src/backend/bisheng/core/cache/utils.py:290). |
| CVE-2026-51860 | 2026-09-30: CVE-2026-51860 (high): bisheng 2.3.0, 2.4.0, and 2.4.0-beta1 is vulnerable to Directory Traversal in src/backend/bisheng/linsight/domain/task_exec.py. |
| CVE-2026-51861 | 2026-09-30: CVE-2026-51861 (critical): bisheng 2.3.0, 2.4.0, and 2.4.0-beta1 is vulnerable to Code Injection in src/backend/bisheng/api/v1/validate.py. |
| CVE-2026-82278 | 2026-08-28: CVE-2026-82278 (high): BISHENG before 2.6.0 contains a remote code execution vulnerability in the workflow run_once endpoint that allows authenticated users to execute arbitrary Pytho |
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 ↑No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| logging-scan | searched 5,885 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
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
8 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured The tree carries design documentation (docs/architecture/01-architecture-overview.md and 61 more). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- 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 79 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 4,269 commits landed in the last year, against 2,189 the year before (+95%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- measured No experiment tracking is configured in the repository. How was the shipped model trained and evaluated, and could it be reproduced?
- 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 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 TypeScript codebase, with Python alongside (42% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in src/, features/, docker/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker/docker-compose-ft.yml 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/dataelement/bisheng/83aa354)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 — 88 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 88 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 12,639 · top5 share 0.028 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 104 · per kloc 0.1 · lines read 994,369 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.32 · early test per code 0.02 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.46 · early delete per insert 0.31 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 3,251 · share 0.208 · with tests 675 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 0 · columns added last year 62 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 3,800 · compat files 1 |
| 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 3 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 132 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 3 · settings off 0 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 11 · floating 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 1 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 32 · release commits 1 · changelog commits 1 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations run at start, but as a single instance, where that is safesites 2 · scaled False |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 3.2 · window last 24 months · authors 79 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 79 · active 12mo 30 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 79 · directories 3 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 79 · one off share 0.304 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 79 · top share a quarter or more · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 52 |
| 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 11 · joined 13 · regular last year 18 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 1,019 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 6 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,216 · source 5,012 · test ratio 0.243 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 115 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 8,447 · low content share 0.104 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 6 · test files 1,237 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 6 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 19 · recent commits 6,493 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 0 · 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 8 · ci configs 6 · product files 3,800 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.402 · merges 107 · long lived 43 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.025 · commits 6,221 · over 2000 lines 155 |
| 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 6 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 25.71 · repeat share 0.207 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 4,352 · write once share 0.409 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0189 · product files 3,796 · distinct blocks 413,278 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,000,026 · files 38 · per kloc 0.07 |
| 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 paths; the only other matches are expired or licence tokens or placeholders, which grant nothingnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 5,885 |
| 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_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture paths; the only other matches are expired or licence tokens or placeholders, which grant nothingpatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 2,999,872 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 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 0 · licence or card files 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 11 |
| 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.api_versions_coexisting | the newer API version is recent; the old one may be on its way outmonths together 1 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 11 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 342 · added in two years 171 · removed within 60 days 22 |
| 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 | no release carried a different root licence; 1 change no release contained set asidelicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 1 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 5.0 · days since last tag 1 · commits last 90 days 1,090 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 1 · on branch 60 · tags in window 61 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 13
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 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.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | 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 |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 5 records name bisheng with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2022-48230, CVE-2022-48255, CVE-2022-48259, …) |
| 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 ER0G-VDPT-GJS0 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/ER0GVDPTGJS0?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: 246.3authenticated: False |
| 20.8s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 30.9s | read the git history | commits: 10019tracked files: 6625 |
| 268.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 268.6s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 429.7s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 429.7s | deleting the working copy |
Total 429.7s ·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).