1e8c188 · 1,427 commits · 2,779 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations. People was not rated.
101 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 5 raised something worth a question. 18 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 30 October 2026.
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- 3 findings about one contributor are withheld: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits; a buyer of this report reads them.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 2% 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 · adequate · ratings ↑The repository begins with most of itself already written
adequateThe first commit carries 457,892 lines — 49% of every line ever added. Whatever happened before that commit happened somewhere this repository cannot show you, so the early history is not available as evidence of how the system was designed.
| ec9b61b | 2020-09-26T02:48:49+00:00; +457,892 across 2404 files; subject: 'upgrade to tis-solr2.0' |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Commit messages are templated rather than written
adequate46% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 27.5 characters. A log written by someone explaining their reasoning to a future reader does not look like this. The log is therefore weak evidence of intent, whatever the code is like.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| commit-subjects | 41× 'add hudi support for TIS' |
| commit-subjects | 35× 'update' |
| commit-subjects | 33× 'Update README.md' |
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.
tis-console/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/coredefine/module/action/CoreAction.java is 2,643 lines, 34× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 77 lines. 28 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 2,643. 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 | tis-console/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/coredefine/module/action/CoreAction.java:1 — 2,643 lines (34× median) |
| line-count | tis-console/src/main/java/name/fraser/neil/plaintext/diff_match_patch.java:1 — 2,320 lines (30× median) |
| line-count | tis-plugin/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/extension/Descriptor.java:1 — 1,963 lines (25× median) |
| line-count | tis-plugin/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/extension/model/UpdateCenter.java:1 — 1,820 lines (23× median) |
| line-count | tis-console/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/offline/module/action/OfflineDatasourceAction.java:1 — 1,732 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 ↑12% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate31 of 269 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 | 31 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.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them. What a person adds here.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑Tests are falling behind the code they cover
adequateIn the first half of this history, 25% of lines written were test lines. In the second half that fell to 8%. The codebase is growing faster than the safety net around it, which is the shape of a system that gets more expensive to change every quarter — and the cost lands on whoever owns it next.
| test-lines-per-code-line | first half 111,127/450,036 (24.7%); second half 11,438/144,888 (7.9%) |
| midpoint | history split at 2023-10-13 |
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.
22 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate22 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Sep 2020. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| tis-hadoop-rpc/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/grpc/MasterJob.java | tis-hadoop-rpc/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/grpc/MasterJob.java — deprecated since Sep 2020 |
| tis-hadoop-rpc/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/rpc/grpc/log/stream/PExecuteState.java | tis-hadoop-rpc/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/rpc/grpc/log/stream/PExecuteState.java — deprecated since Sep 2020 |
| tis-plugin/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/extension/impl/ClassicPluginStrategy.java | tis-plugin/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/extension/impl/ClassicPluginStrategy.java — deprecated since Sep 2020 |
| maven-tpi-plugin/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/maven/plugins/tpi/VersionNumber.java | maven-tpi-plugin/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/maven/plugins/tpi/VersionNumber.java — deprecated since Sep 2020 |
| tis-assemble/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/fullbuild/taskflow/WorkflowTaskConfigParser.java | tis-assemble/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/fullbuild/taskflow/WorkflowTaskConfigParser.java — deprecated since Sep 2020 |
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 ↑None of the standard security guard rails are configured
adequateThere is no disclosure policy, no automated dependency updates, no named code owners and no pre-commit configuration. None of these is load-bearing on its own. Their collective absence says that security posture here is whatever the current team happens to remember to do, which is not a posture that survives the team changing.
| guardrail-scan | checked 5 kinds of guard rail across 2,779 tracked files; 0 present |
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 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 | docker-compose/powerjob/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.
The production build publishes source maps
adequateThe build configuration emits source maps for production, so the original source, with its comments and structure, is downloadable by every visitor. Upload them to an error tracker and keep them off the public server instead.
| design/micro-frontend/poc/tis-poc-webcomponent-plugin/webapp/webpack.config.js | design/micro-frontend/poc/tis-poc-webcomponent-plugin/webapp/webpack.config.js:60 — source maps in a production build |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
19 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 | design/micro-frontend/poc/tis-poc-webcomponent-plugin/webapp/package.json:11 — ^15.2.0 |
| unpinned | design/micro-frontend/poc/tis-poc-webcomponent-plugin/webapp/package.json:12 — ^15.2.0 |
| unpinned | design/micro-frontend/poc/tis-poc-webcomponent-plugin/webapp/package.json:13 — ^15.2.0 |
| unpinned | design/micro-frontend/poc/tis-poc-webcomponent-plugin/webapp/package.json:14 — ^15.2.0 |
| unpinned | design/micro-frontend/poc/tis-poc-webcomponent-plugin/webapp/package.json:15 — ^15.2.0 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
2 SQL statements built from strings
adequate2 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 2 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.
| tis-collection-info-collect/src/main/java/CreateInsertSql.java | tis-collection-info-collect/src/main/java/CreateInsertSql.java:95 — SQL built from a string |
| tis-console/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/manage/biz/dal/dao/impl/ApplicationDAOImpl.java | tis-console/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/manage/biz/dal/dao/impl/ApplicationDAOImpl.java:67 — 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.
2 of 4 Kubernetes workloads declare no resource limits
adequate2 workload manifests set no CPU or memory limits. One pod that leaks memory or spins can starve everything else on its node, and the scheduler cannot plan capacity for what it cannot see.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| tis-k8s/src/main/filters/tis-test-mysql.yaml | tis-k8s/src/main/filters/tis-test-mysql.yaml — workload with no limits |
| tis-k8s/tis-test-mysql.yaml | tis-k8s/tis-test-mysql.yaml — workload with no limits |
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.
Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → Apache-2.0 (2021-12-07)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".
| 8be5b99e1 | LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 from 2020-09-27 |
| 732099a8a | LICENSE — Apache-2.0 from 2021-12-07 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
3 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-08-14. 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 2 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 5.1.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 1 record names tis with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2025-40181).
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-2026-69101 | 2026-08-14: CVE-2026-69101 (high): Datavane TIS v5.0.0 contains an XML external entity (XXE) injection vulnerability that allows authenticated attackers to perform server-side request forgery and |
| CVE-2026-24815 | 2026-01-27: CVE-2026-24815 (critical): Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type, Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in datavane tis (tis-plugin/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/ext |
| CVE-2026-24816 | 2026-01-27: CVE-2026-24816 (critical): Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop') vulnerability in datavane tis (tis-console/src/main/java/com/qlangtech/tis/runtime/module/action modules) |
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 telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere
adequateNone of 2,292 readable files references an instrumentation, metrics or error-reporting library. If this system is in production, nobody learns that it broke from the system itself — they learn it from a customer. That is a reliability finding before it is an observability one.
| telemetry-scan | searched 2,292 tracked text files for 16 known instrumentation libraries; manifests for metrics, tracing and error-reporting families; locked dependencies for the packages that emit; 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 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 2,292 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.
4 of 4 deployments run a single replica
adequate4 deployments set `replicas: 1`, and nothing (an autoscaler, a disruption budget) adds more. Every deploy and every node drain is downtime, and the availability the buyer inherits has a ceiling.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| tis-k8s/src/main/filters/tis-console.yaml | tis-k8s/src/main/filters/tis-console.yaml — replicas: 1 |
| tis-k8s/src/main/filters/tis-test-mysql.yaml | tis-k8s/src/main/filters/tis-test-mysql.yaml — replicas: 1 |
| tis-k8s/tis-console.yaml | tis-k8s/tis-console.yaml — replicas: 1 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
11 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 (design/micro-frontend/architecture.md). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverageNot rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them.
- Which of the people who wrote this are part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- 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 Java codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Java in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in tis-plugin/, tis-console/, tis-sql-parser/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker-compose/.gitignore and 20 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/datavane/tis/1e8c188)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 — 83 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 83 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 — 51
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 5,469 · top5 share 0.034 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 98 · per kloc 0.26 · lines read 370,739 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.475 · early delete per insert 0.407 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 1,687 · compat files 0 |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 16 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 4 · floating 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 2 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 269 · source 1,875 · test ratio 0.143 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 23 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 1,381 · low content share 0.04 |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 2 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 416 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 2 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 289 |
| 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 2 · ci configs 2 · product files 1,687 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,167 · write once share 0.306 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0298 · product files 1,606 · distinct blocks 125,273 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 372,808 · files 29 · per kloc 0.13 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 2 |
| 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 2,292 |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 824,478 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 3 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_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 15 · added in two years 15 · 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.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 128.0 · days since last tag 75 · commits last 90 days 25 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 0 · on branch 21 · tags in window 21 |
| 03.single_maintainer | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 32
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | too few fixes in 24 months to judge |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, stay |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 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.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | not observable from this history: it mirrors a Mercurial repository, where review happens outside git |
| 02.ci_presence | not observable from this history: it mirrors a Mercurial repository, whose process runs outside git |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | not observable from this history: it mirrors a Mercurial repository, whose process runs outside git |
| 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 | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 1 record names tis with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2025-40181) |
| 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 4H15-NCEM-PSRH 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/4H15NCEMPSRH?via=badge)
5 pieces of evidence on this report quote the repository directly. Four checks quote text: up to five TODO-style comments, up to four commit subjects, up to five unpinned dependency lines and one status line from the README's first screen, such as “no longer maintained”. In each case the text is the evidence, which is why it is kept by default.
This rewrites every stored reading of this repository, and every later reading, including a re-read, is stored without the quoted text. The facts we keep to re-read it still hold the lines, as the privacy notice says. The pointers stay.
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-11-03 · shown | borehole 0.7.15 | 23 | adequate |
1 other reading (show)
| 2026-11-07 | borehole 0.7.16 | 23 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 41.6authenticated: False |
| 4.4s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 6.7s | read the git history | commits: 1427tracked files: 2779 |
| 89.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 89.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 141.1s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 141.1s | deleting the working copy |
Total 141.1s ·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).