e7c3c72 · 11,654 commits · 6,023 files
Issued 2026-10-22
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Organization & Key-Person Risk.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 2 raised something worth a question. 10 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 2 credential-shaped matches are withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 45% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- 31% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑crates/dbt-metricflow/src/lib.rs is 11,634 lines, 171× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 68 lines. 151 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 11,634. 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. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 87% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| line-count | crates/dbt-metricflow/src/lib.rs:1 — 11,634 lines (171× median) |
| line-count | crates/dbt-docs-server/web/src/proto/dbtlabs/proto/v1/fields/core_types_pb.ts:1 — 10,845 lines (159× median) |
| line-count | crates/dbt-tasks-core/src/run_cache/run_cache_service.rs:1 — 10,446 lines (153× median) |
| line-count | crates/dbt-schemas/src/schemas/nodes.rs:1 — 8,986 lines (132× median) |
| line-count | crates/dbt-adapter/src/adapter/adapter_impl.rs:1 — 8,601 lines (126× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: one account applies recent work
adequateIn the last 24 months, one account applied or wrote more than half of 4,680 non-merge commits, most of them written by others, among 155 authors; across all history, one contributor authored less than a quarter of 10,117. Every change passes through that one account, however many people write them. In a project with 155 recent contributors and 11 years of history, that is a question about one person's role rather than a fragile team — but it is the question to ask.
| git log --format='%cE' | last 24 months: one committer more than half of 4,680 commits; bus factor 1; 155 authors |
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 · strong · ratings ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v2.0.8, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v0.19.0. 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.
| 43918198c | tag v2.0.8 |
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 ↑2 credential-shaped strings in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings
adequateStrings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key. 1 other match set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
| GitHub token | GitHub token, where fakes are usual |
| JWT | JWT, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
3 Dockerfiles run the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
| no-USER-instruction | crates/dbt-test-containers/docker/dbt-core/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | crates/dbt-test-containers/docker/dbt/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | crates/dbt-test-containers/docker/postgres/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 build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate21 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; 1 step pipes a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/changelog-existence.yml | .github/workflows/changelog-existence.yml:36 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/community-label.yml | .github/workflows/community-label.yml:46 — action pinned by tag |
| crates/dbt-jinja/.github/workflows/release.yml | crates/dbt-jinja/.github/workflows/release.yml:66 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
13 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 17 high or critical
adequate13 of 1,007 locked dependencies match 27 published advisories in OSV, 17 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. None of the high or critical ones is in what the product ships: their lockfile is a separate application (an internal tool, an editor extension), not the product.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| crates/dbt-docs-server/dbt-docs-lib/pnpm-lock.yaml | crates/dbt-docs-server/dbt-docs-lib/pnpm-lock.yaml — @storybook/addon-vitest 10.5.10: GHSA-f2ph-cmg5-wxc8 (critical), fixed in 10.6.2; in a separate application's lockfile |
| crates/dbt-docs-server/dbt-docs-lib/pnpm-lock.yaml | crates/dbt-docs-server/dbt-docs-lib/pnpm-lock.yaml — happy-dom 16.8.1: GHSA-37j7-fg3j-429f (critical), fixed in 20.0.0; in a separate application's lockfile |
| crates/dbt-docs-server/dbt-docs-lib/pnpm-lock.yaml | crates/dbt-docs-server/dbt-docs-lib/pnpm-lock.yaml — storybook 10.5.10: GHSA-f2ph-cmg5-wxc8 (critical), fixed in 10.6.2; in a separate application's lockfile |
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 vendored components with no licence
adequateThird-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| crates/dbt-docs-server/web/src/proto/dbtlabs/proto/v1/events/fusion/deps/deps_pb.ts | crates/dbt-docs-server/web/src/proto/dbtlabs/proto/v1/events/fusion/deps/deps_pb.ts — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| crates/dbt-docs-server/web/src/proto/dbtlabs/proto/v1/events/fusion/deps/index.ts | crates/dbt-docs-server/web/src/proto/dbtlabs/proto/v1/events/fusion/deps/index.ts — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| crates/dbt-telemetry/include/dbtlabs/proto/public/v1/events/fusion/deps/deps.proto | crates/dbt-telemetry/include/dbtlabs/proto/public/v1/events/fusion/deps/deps.proto — 1 tracked files, no licence 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.
11 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 5 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-14. 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 9 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 2.0.8. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 2 records name dbt with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2024-10586, CVE-2026-49360).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| GHSA-xwgp-43x8-639j | 2026-10-14: GHSA-xwgp-43x8-639j (high), fixed in 1.11.16: Transitive tarball name escapes download directory and overwrites files |
| CVE-2026-55837 | 2026-09-14: CVE-2026-55837 (moderate): dbt-mcp is a Model Context Protocol server for interacting with dbt. Prior to 1.20.0, the local OAuth helper in src/dbt_mcp/oauth/fastapi_app.py exposes GET /db |
| GHSA-h364-2v3g-4xm8 | 2026-09-03: GHSA-h364-2v3g-4xm8 (high), fixed in 2.0.0-rc.1: `dbt deps` symlink traversal enables arbitrary file write/overwrite outside `dbt_packages` |
| GHSA-wfxc-3pjp-fm6h | 2026-09-03: GHSA-wfxc-3pjp-fm6h (moderate), fixed in 2.0.0-rc.1: Security disclosure: vulnerable astral-tokio-tar pin enables creating extra files via `dbt deps` |
| GHSA-pxwq-479r-hhwr | 2026-08-21: GHSA-pxwq-479r-hhwr (high), fixed in 1.11.4 and 1.12.3: DoS in dbt Core SQL compilation via pinned vulnerable sqlparse parser |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 7 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. The findings below are what it could still read.
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
7 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 (crates/dbt-agate/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 coverage- measured 433 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured 4,390 commits landed in the last year, against 288 the year before (+1424%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 05.1 and 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- 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 coverageNot rated: only 7 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- measured Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (crates/dbt-loader/src/dbt_macro_assets/dbt-adapters/macros/relations/create_backup.sql). Has a restore ever been rehearsed, and how long did it take?
- 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 Rust codebase, with TypeScript alongside (27% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Rust in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in crates/, certificates/, assets/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (crates/dbt-docs-server/Dockerfile and 4 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/dbt-labs/dbt/e7c3c72)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 — 94 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 94 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 — 65
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 22,541 · top5 share 0.019 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 759 · per kloc 0.82 · lines read 926,124 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.428 · early delete per insert 0.63 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,216 · share 0.221 · with tests 269 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.002 · code files 2,534 · compat files 4 |
| 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 71 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 22 · settings off 6 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 1 · floating 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 83 · release commits 3 · changelog commits 203 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 433 · active 12mo 131 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 433 · one off share 0.427 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 433 · 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 155 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 4 · joined 76 · regular last year 84 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 11 · window last 24 months · with tracked 281 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 35 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,322 · source 3,278 · test ratio 0.403 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 384 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 10,273 · low content share 0.03 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 35 · with tests 6 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 7 · test files 2,391 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 35 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.007 · reverts 32 · recent commits 4,680 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 3 · commits since 72 · days since lockfile changed 7 |
| 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 11 · ci configs 35 · product files 2,534 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.027 · commits 4,079 · over 2000 lines 110 |
| 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 62 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 23.55 · repeat share 0.063 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,796 · write once share 0.467 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 7 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 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_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 3 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on Apache-2.0license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 13 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 361 · added in two years 353 · removed within 60 days 24 |
| 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 0.0 · days since last tag 8 · commits last 90 days 1,032 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 29
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | tests are kept inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Rust: its logging setup is not 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.correlation_ids | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.knowledge_silos | too few substantial top-level directories to read ownership |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_html | not assessed for Rust, 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 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 2 records name dbt with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2024-10586, CVE-2026-49360) |
| 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 077M-WWS8-1EGR 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/077MWWS81EGR?via=badge)
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 129.4authenticated: False |
| 15.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 30.1s | read the git history | commits: 11654tracked files: 6023 |
| 230.7s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 230.7s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 314.5s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 314.5s | deleting the working copy |
Total 314.5s ·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).