7ecf991 · 927 commits · 906 files
Issued 2026-10-28
Significant: one contributor carries the recent work.
1 of 6 assessable dimensions carries significant findings, 2 are adequate and 3 are strong. 1 finding is worth checking first. 8 findings, each with its evidence: the commit, path and lines it rests on, or, when something is missing, what was looked for. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 03.1 Significant: Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
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 28 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 6 high or critical in what ships
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | significant findings | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 89% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- 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 904 of 904 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑web/src/pages/Graph.tsx is 3,668 lines, 20× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 177 lines. 20 files exceed 1,770 lines, the largest being 3,668. 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 | web/src/pages/Graph.tsx:1 — 3,668 lines (20× median) |
| line-count | crates/utopia-server/src/api/mcp_tests.rs:1 — 3,444 lines (19× median) |
| line-count | crates/utopia-llm/src/lib.rs:1 — 3,269 lines (18× median) |
| line-count | crates/utopia-store/src/reasoning.rs:1 — 3,237 lines (18× median) |
| line-count | crates/utopia-store/src/resolution.rs:1 — 3,206 lines (18× 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 · significant findings · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
significant findingsIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 870 non-merge commits among 33 authors; across all history, more than half of 870. This is the single most expensive thing to discover after closing, and the repository cannot tell you whether that person is part of the transaction.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 870 commits; bus factor 1; 33 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 ↑Node.js 20 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 20 (end of life 2026-04-30). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2026-04-30. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| docker/Dockerfile | docker/Dockerfile — Node.js 20, end of life 2026-04-30 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑1 Dockerfile runs the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
| no-USER-instruction | docker/Dockerfile — runs as root |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
28 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 6 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first28 of 1,258 locked dependencies match 62 published advisories in OSV, 7 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. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
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 web/pnpm-lock.yaml settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| web/pnpm-lock.yaml | web/pnpm-lock.yaml — body-parser 2.3.0: GHSA-27r3-jxmh-p828 (high), fixed in 2.4.0 |
| web/pnpm-lock.yaml | web/pnpm-lock.yaml — undici 7.29.1: GHSA-2m5v-pch6-74hx (high), fixed in 7.30.1 |
| web/pnpm-lock.yaml | web/pnpm-lock.yaml — zod 3.25.76: GHSA-mrhx-c7xc-m3w5 (high), fixed in 4.6.6 |
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
adequate7 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/checks.yml | .github/workflows/checks.yml:31 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/checks.yml | .github/workflows/checks.yml:37 — 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.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑One request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.
| request ids | no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
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
6 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 (docs/decisions/0001-ontology-import-and-governance.md and 65 more). 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 One contributor authored more than half of the commits in this history. Is that person 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 Rust codebase, with TypeScript alongside (33% 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/, web/, migrations/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 72% 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?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker-compose.build.yml and 2 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/deeplethe/utopia/7ecf991)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 — 97 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 97 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 — 59
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 1,203 · top5 share 0.121 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 1 · per kloc 0.0 · lines read 365,863 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 4 · columns added last year 67 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 462 · compat files 0 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 2 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 1 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 2 · floating 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 9 · release commits 3 · changelog commits 11 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 33 · directories 4 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | a healthy share of contributors committed more than onceshare 0.333 · authors 33 · one commit authors 11 |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 33 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 56 · window last 24 months · with tracked 26 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 3 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 334 · source 672 · test ratio 0.497 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 871 · low content share 0.002 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 3 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 220 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 3 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 870 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 0 · 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 3 · ci configs 3 · product files 462 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.24 · merges 25 · long lived 6 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.039 · commits 838 · over 2000 lines 33 |
| 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 35,650 · share of insertions 0.0819 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 23.81 · repeat share 0.0 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 500 · write once share 0.404 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0021 · product files 462 · distinct blocks 131,748 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 3 |
| 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 891 |
| 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_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on Apache-2.0license Apache-2.0 |
| 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.api_versions_coexisting | the newer API version is recent; the old one may be on its way outmonths together 1 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 107 · added in two years 107 · removed within 60 days 3 |
| 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 · days since last tag 17 · commits last 90 days 927 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 0 · on branch 9 · tags in window 9 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 38
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | history too short to compare code and test growth |
| 04.churn_trend | history too short to read a churn trend |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | too few fixes in 24 months to judge |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest 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.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.active_contributors | history too short to distinguish active from historical contributors |
| 03.contributor_attrition | too little history to tell activity from absence |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | too little history |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 02.release_cadence | repository history is too short to judge release cadence |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two years |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 4 records name utopia with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2005-3200, CVE-2005-3201, CVE-2005-4223, …) |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; NVD: 4 records name utopia with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2005-3200, CVE-2005-3201, CVE-2005-4223, …) |
| 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 7J8T-EBM2-2E24 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/7J8TEBM22E24?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: 13.6authenticated: False |
| 3.5s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 5.5s | read the git history | commits: 927tracked files: 906 |
| 75.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 75.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 105.3s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 105.3s | deleting the working copy |
Total 105.3s ·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).