22ddee3 · 23,934 commits · 19,188 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
102 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 2 findings are worth checking first. 7 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- The project does not take pull requests CONTRIBUTING.md:9
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.
- 4 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 1% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑packages/extensions/tool-cordis/src/api-catalog.ts is 9,394 lines, 94× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 99 lines. 47 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 9,394. 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/extensions/tool-cordis/src/api-catalog.ts:1 — 9,394 lines (94× median) |
| line-count | packages/extensions/cordis-client-runner/src/client/slot-catalog.ts:1 — 5,181 lines (52× median) |
| line-count | packages/client/ui-trajectory/src/client/TrajectoryTable.tsx:1 — 3,539 lines (35× median) |
| line-count | packages/typert/generator/src/analyzer.ts:1 — 3,469 lines (35× median) |
| line-count | packages/client/ui-conversation/src/client/locales.ts:1 — 3,064 lines (30× 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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑156 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequate worth checking firstpython/sdk-runtime/package.json declares 156 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.
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 python/sdk-runtime/package.json and the 3 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| direct-dependencies | python/sdk-runtime/package.json — 156 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/bundle/web-app/package.json — 138 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/bundle/base/package.json — 97 declared |
| direct-dependencies | apps/cli/package.json — 89 declared |
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 ↑19 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 3 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first19 of 1,659 locked dependencies match 83 published advisories in OSV, 43 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 python/sdk/uv.lock and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| python/sdk/uv.lock | python/sdk/uv.lock — pillow 12.3.0: GHSA-332p-7hrc-92wf (critical), fixed in 13.0.0; a development dependency |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — dompurify 3.4.16: GHSA-cg2g-xh64-v4q7 (critical), fixed in 3.4.17; a development dependency |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — @modelcontextprotocol/sdk 1.31.0: GHSA-22jm-h49p-29qw (high), fixed in 1.32.0 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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.
| apps/web/vite.config.ts | apps/web/vite.config.ts:181 — 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.
4 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate4 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| packages/client/ui-primitives/src/CodeFileIcon.tsx | packages/client/ui-primitives/src/CodeFileIcon.tsx:25 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/client/ui-primitives/src/markdown/CodeBlock.tsx | packages/client/ui-primitives/src/markdown/CodeBlock.tsx:184 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/client/ui-sidebar-documentpreview/src/client/html/pack.ts | packages/client/ui-sidebar-documentpreview/src/client/html/pack.ts:41 — HTML from a variable |
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 structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| logging-scan | searched 14,868 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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
5 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/architecture.md and 1 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 64 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- 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 Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (.agents/notes/archived/architecture/2026-08-05-large-session-jsonl-restore-pipeline.i18n.yaml). 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?
- measured 10 postmortem or incident write-ups in the tree (docs/postmortem/0001-acp-default-export-drops-inject.md). Walk through the most recent one: what broke, how it was found, and what changed afterwards.
- 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 TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in packages/, snapshots/, apps/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 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/deepseek-ai/deepseek-harness/22ddee3)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 — 95 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 95 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 61
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 37,643 · top5 share 0.017 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 164 · per kloc 0.11 · lines read 1,510,544 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 5,697 · share 0.825 · with tests 4,698 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 3,028 · 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 95 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 84 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 1 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 33 · release commits 63 · changelog commits 92 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 0.4 · window last 24 months · authors 64 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 64 · directories 9 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 64 · one off share 0.094 |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 64 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 9,059 · window last 24 months · with tracked 71 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 28 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 3,182 · source 6,169 · test ratio 0.516 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 14,875 · low content share 0.007 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 28 · with tests 8 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 1 · test files 4,155 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 28 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 46 · recent commits 14,864 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 3 · commits since 17 · 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 5 · ci configs 28 · product files 3,028 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.002 · merges 2,236 · long lived 4 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.037 · commits 13,635 · over 2000 lines 500 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was a branch merged by a merge commit, developed on its own branch and landed in one piece (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays itlargest commits 189fb34..008ae0c · bursts explained 15 · largest net added 16,134 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 48 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.43 · repeat share 0.029 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 11,255 · write once share 0.412 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0045 · product files 2,987 · distinct blocks 325,613 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,525,400 · files 3 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 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 14,868 |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 196 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 2 |
| 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.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 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 80 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 13 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 13 · stated in headers or notices 3 |
| 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.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 05.licence_changes | relicensed only between permissive licences: BSD-3-Clause → MIT (2026-08-13)latest MIT · weaker False · licence versions 2 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 1.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 18,866 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 34
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.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 |
| 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.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile outside development, test and example paths |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript, the language 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 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | the history scanned covers 3 months, less than the 12 this question needs |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | the history scanned covers 3 months, less than the 18 this question needs |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | the history scanned covers 3 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.dependency_churn | the history scanned covers 3 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | the history scanned covers 3 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.release_branch | too few release tags to tell |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-web-frontend (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI deepseek-harness-runtime-bin (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI deepseek-harness-sdk (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-acp (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-account-controller (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-gateway (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-job-controller (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-remote-access (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-remotes (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-session-controller (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-settings-controller (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-terminal-controller (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-workspace-controller (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-workspace-files (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-attachment-local (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-attachment (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-app-boot (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-cmdline (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-config-editor (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-hmr (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-plugin-manager (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-plugin-market (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-browser-use (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-acp-app (an empty record for a package published here), NVD did not |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-web-frontend (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI deepseek-harness-runtime-bin (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI deepseek-harness-sdk (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-acp (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-account-controller (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-gateway (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-job-controller (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-remote-access (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-remotes (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-session-controller (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-settings-controller (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-terminal-controller (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-workspace-controller (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-api-workspace-files (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-attachment-local (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-attachment (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-app-boot (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-cmdline (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-config-editor (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-hmr (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-plugin-manager (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-plugin-market (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-browser-use (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @deepseek-ai/dsh-acp-app (an empty record for a package published here), NVD did not answer |
| 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 JV0D-FDEF-31E3 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/JV0DFDEF31E3?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: 307.5authenticated: False |
| 45.5s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 88.4s | read the git history | commits: 23934tracked files: 19188 |
| 535.3s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 535.3s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 833.2s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 833.2s | deleting the working copy |
Total 833.2s ·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).