Borehole · Risk register · free tier
datalinkdc/dinky
Free reading: not for reliance
Borehole badge for datalinkdc/dinky
0b426b3 · 2,785 commits · 2,970 files
Issued 2026-11-03

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.

What the repository says about itself
  • 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
What this survey read. This commit may not be the product users run: The newest release, v1.2.5, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v1.2.0. Read this report as describing that commit, not the release users run. Survey the release branch or tag as well.
Published under today's rules. The verification code attests to this reading as it was stored. This page differs from it as follows.
  • 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.
strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository
Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating
0% of added lines arrived in commits declaring an AI agent as co-author
The surviving-lines measurement was not run on this repository.
9% of lines added in the last 12 months (since 2025-11-03) arrived in AI-declared commits: 1/25 commits, confidence low. Also a floor.
1/2,533 commits declaring an agent · Cursor
confidence: moderate
  • 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
70,291 lines excluded as lockfiles, vendored or generated.
This is a lower bound. It counts what the repository declares. Undeclared AI authorship is invisible here, and a single rebase removes the trailers this rests on. Absence of a declaration is absence of disclosure, not absence of AI authorship.

Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance

01 · strong · ratings ↑
A note that does not affect this rating
01.6

dinky-admin/src/main/resources/db/migration/postgresql/V20240506.1.0.2__baseline.sql is 4,090 lines, 51× this codebase's median file

adequate

The 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.

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 ↑
02.3

Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase

adequate

117 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.

Evidence
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.

02.15

90 tests are switched off

adequate

90 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.

Evidence
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.

02.24

6% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines

adequate

12 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.

Evidence
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.

A note that does not affect this rating
02.6

Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository

adequate

Of 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.

Evidence
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 ↑
03.12

The next contributor after the top one has not committed here for more than a year

adequate

The #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.

Evidence
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.

03.27

Regular contributors fell from 10 to 3 in a year

adequate

8 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.

Evidence
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 ↑
04.19

7% of bug fixes add or change a test

adequate

Of 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.

Evidence
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.

Notes that do not affect this rating
04.38

11 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago

adequate

11 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.

Evidence
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.

04.62

Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

adequate

The 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.

Evidence
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 ↑
05.6

1 Dockerfile runs the application as root

adequate

No 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.

Evidence
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.

Notes that do not affect this rating
05.3

118 dependencies float, and no lockfile is committed

adequate

Dependency 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.

Evidence
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.

05.25

1 environment file is committed

adequate

deploy/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.

Evidence
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.

05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

12 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.

Evidence
.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.

05.20

3 SQL statements built from strings

adequate

3 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.

Evidence
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.

05.22

3 deserialisers that can run code

adequate

3 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.

Evidence
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.

05.65

5 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical

adequate

The 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.

Evidence
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 ↑
06.2

No structured logging library is in use

adequate

Nothing 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.

Evidence
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.

A note that does not affect this rating
06.9

No error reporter is wired in

adequate

Nothing 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.

Evidence
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. See the tiers.

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
  1. measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 2,162 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it? Answer lives in: The team01.38
  2. 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? Answer lives in: The team and the submodule owners01.35
  3. Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product? Answer lives in: Your architects, with the product roadmap01.39
  4. Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now? Answer lives in: The team's reasoning at the time01.40

Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity

02 · high coverage
  1. Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history. Answer lives in: The code host's pull request data02.32
  2. Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic? Answer lives in: The issue tracker: backlog, sprint history, estimate accuracy02.38
  3. How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from? Answer lives in: Tickets, chat and postmortems02.37

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · partial coverage
  1. measured 210 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing? Answer lives in: The deal terms03.29
  2. 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? Answer lives in: The team03.22
  3. Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure? Answer lives in: The team; review history only suggests candidates03.28
  4. Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors? Answer lives in: Recruiting data and the org chart03.30
  5. Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands? Answer lives in: HR data03.31
  6. Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time. Answer lives in: Interviews and on-call history03.14
  7. Does the team want to stay after close? Answer lives in: Interviews03.32
  8. How are decisions made and disagreements resolved? Answer lives in: Time with the team03.33

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · minimal coverage
  1. 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. Answer lives in: The team04.11
  2. 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? Answer lives in: The data room04.22
  3. Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it? Answer lives in: Budget and roadmap decisions04.31
  4. Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story? Answer lives in: Revenue, customer and churn data04.33

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · partial coverage
  1. measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it? Answer lives in: The security owner05.43
  2. 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. Answer lives in: The cloud console05.36
  3. What has actually broken, how often, and how badly? Answer lives in: Ticketing and chat05.41
  4. What did external testing find, and was it fixed? Answer lives in: Reports in the data room05.42
  5. What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence? Answer lives in: Audit reports; policy files in the tree are not evidence05.44

Observability & Operations

06 · partial coverage
  1. measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed? Answer lives in: The operations team06.19
  2. measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire? Answer lives in: The alerting tool and the on-call rota06.10
  3. Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered? Answer lives in: Pager history and dashboard logs06.29
  4. Are the service-level objectives actually met? Answer lives in: Production metrics06.30
  5. Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off? Answer lives in: Pager exports and interviews06.31
  6. What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there? Answer lives in: Cloud billing and capacity plans06.32

Fit with the Acquirer

07 · none coverage

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.

  1. 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? 07.1
  2. 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? 07.10
  3. 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? 07.2
  4. 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?
  5. Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired? Answer lives in: Your architecture07.11
  6. What will integration cost, and in what order? Answer lives in: The engagement07.12
  7. Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom? Answer lives in: Your org design07.13
  8. Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign? Answer lives in: Deal terms07.14
  9. Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors? Answer lives in: Customer contracts07.15

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.

Borehole badge for datalinkdc/dinky
[![Borehole](/badge/datalinkdc/dinky.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/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.

Was this reading useful?
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

SignalWhat 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.

SignalWhy
04.eol_runtimeno pinned runtime version to check
04.fix_share_trendfewer than six busy quarters to compare
04.schema_churncolumns, once added, stay
06.print_logginga frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's
06.alert_rulesno alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console
06.deployed_image_floatsno deployment descriptor names an image
06.release_markersfewer than 100 commits in the last year
06.feature_flagsno feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere
03.bus_factor_trendfewer than three active years to compare
02.dependency_update_cadenceno lockfile to date
02.long_lived_branchestoo few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none)
01.notebook_outputsnot a data or machine-learning repository
05.outbound_timeoutsnot assessed for Java, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
05.migration_reversibilitytoo few migrations to judge
05.known_vulnerabilitiesnot assessed for Maven: this survey does not read their dependency files
05.public_env_secretnot assessed for Java, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
05.unsafe_htmlnot assessed for Java, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
05.cleartext_trafficnot a mobile app
05.dataset_provenancenot a data or machine-learning repository
05.license_copyleft_inheritedno 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_conflictno packaging manifest states a licence
04.flags_accumulatingfew or no feature flags in the history
04.api_versions_coexistingone API version is served, or none
05.project_advisoriescould not tell whether 5 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version is only known to be at least 1.2.0
BOREHOLE READING NOT A CERTIFICATION 1XKV-H80K-PZYR 2026-11-03 · 0B426B3 BOREHOLE.DEV/VERIFY

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.

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.

[![Borehole reading, not a certification](https://borehole.dev/badge/datalinkdc/dinky/0b426b3.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/1XKVH80KPZYR?via=badge)

Borehole reading 1XKV-H80K-PZYR, not a certification

Quoted evidence

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.

AtStepDetail
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).

BOREHOLE 0.7.15 DETERMINISTIC LAYER · NO MODEL CALLSREAD ON BOREHOLE'S SERVER · CLONE DELETED TAKEDOWNCONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPOSITORY? YOUR RIGHTS