Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 5 raised something worth a question. 19 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 1 submodule(s) this survey does not read: .github/actions/translate-on-issue .gitmodules:1
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 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 | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 37% 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 ↑dinky-admin/src/main/resources/db/migration/postgresql/V20240506.1.0.2__baseline.sql is 4,090 lines, 51× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 80 lines. 35 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,090. 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 | dinky-admin/src/main/resources/db/migration/postgresql/V20240506.1.0.2__baseline.sql:1 — 4,090 lines (51× median) |
| line-count | dinky-admin/src/main/resources/db/migration/h2/V20240506.1.0.2__baseline.sql:1 — 3,170 lines (39× median) |
| line-count | dinky-web/src/components/Icons/WelcomeIcons.tsx:1 — 2,446 lines (30× median) |
| line-count | dinky-admin/src/main/resources/db/migration/mysql/V20240506.1.0.2__baseline.sql:1 — 2,010 lines (25× median) |
| line-count | dinky-client/dinky-client-1.20/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/yarn/YarnClusterDescriptor.java:1 — 1,808 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 ↑Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase
adequate117 test files against 1,979 source files (5.9%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.
| test-file-ratio | 117 test files / 1,979 source files |
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.
90 tests are switched off
adequate90 skip markers across 45 of 138 test files. Each is a failure somebody chose to stop seeing; the question is whether anyone is tracking them.
| dinky-admin/src/test/java/org/dinky/admin/AdminTest.java | dinky-admin/src/test/java/org/dinky/admin/AdminTest.java:33 — skipped test |
| dinky-admin/src/test/java/org/dinky/security/SecurityAspectTest.java | dinky-admin/src/test/java/org/dinky/security/SecurityAspectTest.java:31 — skipped test |
| dinky-admin/src/test/java/org/dinky/utils/DirUtilTest.java | dinky-admin/src/test/java/org/dinky/utils/DirUtilTest.java:36 — skipped test |
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% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate12 of 216 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 | 12 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.
Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository
adequateOf five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: CI workflows. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| process-scaffolding | 1 of 5 markers present across 2,970 tracked files |
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 · adequate · ratings ↑The next contributor after the top one has not committed here for more than a year
adequateThe #2 contributor of the last three years (less than a quarter of the commits) has not committed here for more than a year, while the repository is still active. These are the people a buyer assumes would step up if the top contributor stopped. The history shows only that no commits of theirs landed here, not why.
| git shortlog -sn | the #2 contributor of the last three years (less than a quarter of the commits) has not committed here for more than a year |
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.
Regular contributors fell from 10 to 3 in a year
adequate8 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 2 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.
| regular contributors by year | 10 then 3; 8 stopped committing, 2 began |
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 ↑7% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 101 fixes in the last 24 months, 7 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| fix commits touching tests | 7 of 101 |
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.
11 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate11 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Mar 2023. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/service/UserService.java | dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/service/UserService.java — deprecated since Mar 2023 |
| dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/service/TenantService.java | dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/service/TenantService.java — deprecated since Mar 2023 |
| dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/service/AlertHistoryService.java | dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/service/AlertHistoryService.java — deprecated since Oct 2023 |
| dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/service/DataBaseService.java | dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/service/DataBaseService.java — deprecated since Oct 2023 |
| dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/service/JobInstanceService.java | dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/service/JobInstanceService.java — deprecated since Oct 2023 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v1.2.5, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v1.2.0. 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.
| ce7678eaa | tag v1.2.5 |
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 | deploy/docker/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.
118 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 | dinky-web/package.json:39 — ^0.3.5 |
| unpinned | dinky-web/package.json:40 — ^2.2.1 |
| unpinned | dinky-web/package.json:41 — ^5.3.7 |
| unpinned | dinky-web/package.json:42 — ^2.8.3 |
| unpinned | dinky-web/package.json:43 — ^2.6.3 |
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.
1 environment file is committed
adequatedeploy/docker/.env is tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| deploy/docker/.env | deploy/docker/.env — committed environment file |
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
adequate12 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/add-assignees.yml | .github/workflows/add-assignees.yml:28 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/auto-realease-ci.yml | .github/workflows/auto-realease-ci.yml:134 — 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.
3 SQL statements built from strings
adequate3 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. 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.
| dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/flywaydb/core/internal/database/postgresql/PostgreSQLDatabase.java | dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/flywaydb/core/internal/database/postgresql/PostgreSQLDatabase.java:47 — SQL built from a string |
| dinky-client/dinky-client-base/src/main/java/org/dinky/trans/ddl/CreateAggTableOperation.java | dinky-client/dinky-client-base/src/main/java/org/dinky/trans/ddl/CreateAggTableOperation.java:55 — SQL built from a string |
| dinky-connectors/dinky-connector-jdbc-1.14/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/connector/jdbc/dialect/SQLServerDialect.java | dinky-connectors/dinky-connector-jdbc-1.14/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/connector/jdbc/dialect/SQLServerDialect.java:120 — 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.
3 deserialisers that can run code
adequate3 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (Java object streams). 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.
| dinky-gateway/src/main/java/org/dinky/gateway/yarn/YarnGateway.java | dinky-gateway/src/main/java/org/dinky/gateway/yarn/YarnGateway.java:527 — code-executing deserialiser |
| dinky-sandbox/dinky-sandbox-base/src/main/java/org/dinky/sandbox/socket/SocketClient.java | dinky-sandbox/dinky-sandbox-base/src/main/java/org/dinky/sandbox/socket/SocketClient.java:60 — code-executing deserialiser |
| dinky-sandbox/dinky-sandbox-base/src/main/java/org/dinky/sandbox/socket/SocketDataProcessor.java | dinky-sandbox/dinky-sandbox-base/src/main/java/org/dinky/sandbox/socket/SocketDataProcessor.java:58 — 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.
5 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-08-06. 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 5 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 1.2.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| CVE-2026-70558 | 2026-08-06: CVE-2026-70558 (critical): Dinky's POST /download/uploadFromRsByLocal handler passes the caller-supplied path parameter directly to new File(path) and file.transferTo(dest) with no path v |
| CVE-2026-70559 | 2026-08-06: CVE-2026-70559 (high): Dinky's SysConfigController.getAll() handler for GET /api/sysConfig/getAll carries a method-level @SaIgnore annotation that short-circuits the class-level @SaCh |
| CVE-2026-3051 | 2026-02-24: CVE-2026-3051 (low): A vulnerability has been found in DataLinkDC dinky up to 1.2.5. The affected element is the function getProjectDir of the file dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/din |
| CVE-2026-3052 | 2026-02-24: CVE-2026-3052 (low): A vulnerability was found in DataLinkDC dinky up to 1.2.5. The impacted element is the function proxyUba of the file dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/control |
| CVE-2026-3053 | 2026-02-24: CVE-2026-3053 (moderate): A vulnerability was determined in DataLinkDC dinky up to 1.2.5. This affects the function addInterceptors of the file dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/config |
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 2,792 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
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 2,162 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- 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 210 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- measured dinky-catalog/, dinky-function/, dinky-scheduler/ (less than a quarter of the files) have not changed in 18 months while the rest of the repository moved. Is that code finished, or abandoned, and who still knows how it works?
- 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 26 commits landed in the last year, against 197 the year before (-87%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three.
- measured A roadmap file is in the tree (docs/docs/roadmap.md, last changed May 2024). A file is not a plan. Does it match the roadmap in the data room, and has the team delivered the last one it wrote?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 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 (deploy/kubernetes/helm/dinky/Chart.yaml) last changed 29 months before the newest commit, while 385 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 Java codebase, with TypeScript alongside (28% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Java in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in dinky-web/, dinky-client/, dinky-admin/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (deploy/docker/Dockerfile and 27 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/datalinkdc/dinky/0b426b3)
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 — 85 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 85 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 — 61
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 9,083 · top5 share 0.026 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 62 · per kloc 0.17 · lines read 373,586 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.062 · early test per code 0.02 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.175 · early delete per insert 0.629 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 1,862 · 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 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 1 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.probes_identical | readiness and liveness are distinct, or not both setidentical 0 · workloads with both 1 |
| 06.single_replica | workloads run more than one replicaworkloads 1 · single replica 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 5.4 · window last 24 months · authors 210 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 210 · active 12mo 10 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 210 · directories 20 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 210 · one off share 0.524 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 210 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than three years ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 41 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 12 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 32 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 2,533 · low content share 0.101 |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 12 · with tests 1 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 12 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 224 |
| 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 4 · ci configs 12 · product files 1,862 |
| 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 225 · share of insertions 0.0002 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 28.22 · repeat share 0.042 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,936 · write once share 0.308 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 376,116 · files 6 · per kloc 0.02 |
| 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.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 2,792 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 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 837,407 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.resource_limits | every workload declares limitsworkloads 1 · 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.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 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 178 · added in two years 21 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 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 35.5 · days since last tag 363 · commits last 90 days 4 |
| 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 — 24
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, stay |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.release_markers | fewer than 100 commits in the last year |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | no lockfile to date |
| 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.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for Java, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | not assessed for Maven: this survey does not read their dependency files |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Java, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_html | not assessed for Java, 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_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 5 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version is only known to be at least 1.2.0 |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 1XKV-H80K-PZYR 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.
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.
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: 38.9authenticated: False |
| 4.0s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 7.8s | read the git history | commits: 2785tracked files: 2970 |
| 88.2s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 88.3s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 141.4s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 141.4s | deleting the working copy |
Total 141.4s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).