9d1bb3b · 4,777 commits · 1,304 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Organization & Key-Person Risk.
102 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 11 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 05.26 41 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 23 high or critical in what ships
- 4 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 5 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 | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 23% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
- deep scan blamed 1,290 of 1,290 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑packages/decap-cms-backend-github/src/API.ts is 2,001 lines, 28× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 71 lines. 5 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 2,001. 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 | packages/decap-cms-backend-github/src/API.ts:1 — 2,001 lines (28× median) |
| line-count | packages/decap-cms-core/src/backend.ts:1 — 1,726 lines (24× median) |
| line-count | packages/decap-cms-core/src/actions/entries.ts:1 — 1,560 lines (21× median) |
| line-count | packages/decap-cms-backend-forgejo/src/API.ts:1 — 1,062 lines (14× median) |
| line-count | packages/decap-cms-backend-gitlab/src/API.ts:1 — 1,043 lines (14× 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.
A move from JavaScript to TypeScript began 83 months ago and is 31% done
adequate163 product files are in the new language and 365 are still in the old one, 83 months after the first new file appeared. The new language's share of the lines rose from 0% to 48%, and moved 7 percentage points in the last year. Two languages for one job doubles what an engineer has to know, and the unmoved half is usually what nobody wants to touch. Ask whether finishing it is planned, and what it costs.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| file counts | 365 old, 163 new |
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: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 356 non-merge commits among 57 authors; across all history, less than a quarter of 3,683. In a project with 57 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 shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 356 commits; bus factor 1; 57 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.
The bus factor fell from 3 to 1
adequateYear by year, newest first, the number of people who wrote half the changes was 1, 2, 3, 2. The team narrowed to one person, which is a different risk from one that always was: the code does not say why.
| bus factor by year | 1, 2, 3, 2 |
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 ↑No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑14 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. 9 other matchs 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.
| AWS access key | 5 cited: AWS access key, 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.
41 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 23 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first41 of 2,500 locked dependencies match 112 published advisories in OSV, 47 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening pnpm-lock.yaml settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — tar 7.5.11: GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw (critical), fixed in 7.5.19 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — babel-traverse 6.26.0: GHSA-67hx-6x53-jw92 (critical); a development dependency |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — form-data 2.3.3: GHSA-fjxv-7rqg-78g4 (critical), fixed in 2.5.4; a development dependency |
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.
| packages/decap/webpack.config.cjs | packages/decap/webpack.config.cjs:25 — 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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate5 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/labeler.yml | .github/workflows/labeler.yml:11 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/nodejs.yml | .github/workflows/nodejs.yml:22 — action pinned by tag |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
3 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-01. 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 1 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 3.17.1. 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.
| GHSA-jm5q-pq3r-26g9 | 2026-09-01: GHSA-jm5q-pq3r-26g9 (low), fixed in 3.3.0: Bitbucket OAuth refresh token exposed in request URL |
| GHSA-5rrq-v82w-qpfr | 2026-09-01: GHSA-5rrq-v82w-qpfr (critical), fixed in 3.11.0: decap-server local_git path traversal via prefix-based repository boundary check allows out-of-repository read, write, and delete |
| CVE-2025-57520 | 2025-09-10: CVE-2025-57520 (moderate): A Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in Decap CMS thru 3.8.3. Input fields such as body, tags, title, and description are not properly sanitized be |
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 1,180 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 1,180 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 error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
8 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 815 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- 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 607 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 292 commits landed in the last year, against 64 the year before (+356%). 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 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 JavaScript codebase, with TypeScript alongside (30% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run JavaScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in packages/, functions/, img/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 46% of lines added in the last 12 months (5% of added lines) came through AI-declared commits. Does your organisation have a policy on inheriting and maintaining that code, and does your engineering team's tooling match how it was produced?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- 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/decaporg/decap-cms/9d1bb3b)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 — 91 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 91 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 — 68
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 4,437 · top5 share 0.065 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 35 · per kloc 0.12 · lines read 303,207 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.661 · early test per code 0.321 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.39 · early delete per insert 0.519 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 155 · share 0.594 · with tests 92 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.003 · code files 593 · compat files 2 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 7 |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 2 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 461 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 30 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 607 · active 12mo 40 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 607 · directories 3 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 607 · one off share 0.725 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 607 · 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 57 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 0 · joined 6 · regular last year 9 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 15 · window last 24 months · with tracked 9 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 5 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 246 · source 839 · test ratio 0.293 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 3,223 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 4,550 · low content share 0.016 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 5 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 2 · test files 463 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 5 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.011 · reverts 4 · recent commits 356 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 1 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 2 · ci configs 5 · product files 593 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.04 · commits 276 · over 2000 lines 11 |
| 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 590 · share of insertions 0.0005 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 18.88 · repeat share 0.121 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 578 · write once share 0.253 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 304,253 · files 2 · per kloc 0.01 |
| 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.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 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.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0 |
| 05.unsafe_html | raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 2 |
| 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 MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 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 5 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 313 · added in two years 34 · removed within 60 days 5 |
| 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 9 · commits last 90 days 199 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 15 · on branch 165 · tags in window 180 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 23
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for JavaScript or TypeScript, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 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 |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm decap-cms-app (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-backend-aws-cognito-github-proxy (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-backend-azure (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-backend-bitbucket (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-backend-forgejo (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-backend-git-gateway (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-backend-gitea (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-backend-github (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-backend-gitlab (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-backend-proxy (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-backend-test (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-backend-turbo-github (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-backend-turbo-gitlab (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-core (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-default-exports (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-editor-component-image (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-lib-auth (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-lib-turbo (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-lib-util (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-lib-widgets (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-locales (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-media-library-cloudinary (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-media-library-s3 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-media-library-uploadcare (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm decap-cms-ui-auth (an empty record for a package published here) did not |
| 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 A0PV-WEY2-KX6A 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/A0PVWEY2KX6A?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: 107.1authenticated: False |
| 13.7s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 24.1s | read the git history | commits: 4777tracked files: 1304 |
| 196.1s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 196.1s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 259.6s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 259.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 259.6s ·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).