d7b2410 · 1,858 commits · 271 files
Issued 2026-10-28
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity.
102 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 2 findings are worth checking first. 12 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.60 Relicensed: MIT → Apache-2.0 (2016-06-30) → AGPL-3.0 (2016-07-09) → MIT (2019-10-26) LICENSE
- 12 submodule(s) this survey does not read: test-e2e/features, connectors/cache/redis, connectors/cache/memcached .gitmodules:1
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.
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
- 3 findings about one contributor are withheld: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits; a buyer of this report reads them.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 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
- deep scan blamed 258 of 269 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑No finding. 11 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · adequate · ratings ↑Change lands on the trunk with no trace of review
adequate worth checking firstIn the last 24 months, 1 of 51 commits (2.0%) carry any trace of review: a merge, a pull-request reference, a Reviewed-by or Reviewed-on trailer, a Closes/Fixes reference, a maintainer's sign-off on someone else's change, or a change applied by someone other than its author. Every common review workflow leaves at least one of those, so either review happens somewhere this history cannot see, or it is not happening. A buyer should establish which before relying on the review story they are told.
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. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| reviewable-arrivals | 1 of 51 commits in the last 24 months carry review evidence; 23.9% across all 1,858 |
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.
32 tests are switched off
adequate32 skip markers across 15 of 114 test files. Each is a failure somebody chose to stop seeing; the question is whether anyone is tracking them.
| src/config/js-yaml-loader.spec.ts | src/config/js-yaml-loader.spec.ts:38 — skipped test |
| src/config/js-yaml-loader.spec.ts | src/config/js-yaml-loader.spec.ts:302 — skipped test |
| src/connection-endpoint/base/connection-endpoint.spec.ts | src/connection-endpoint/base/connection-endpoint.spec.ts:42 — skipped test |
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.
Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository
adequateOf five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: CI workflows. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| process-scaffolding | 1 of 5 markers present across 271 tracked files |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them. What a person adds here.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
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 | 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.
12 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 8 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first12 of 194 locked dependencies match 23 published advisories in OSV, 8 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 telemetry-server/package-lock.json and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| telemetry-server/package-lock.json | telemetry-server/package-lock.json — proxy-addr 2.0.6: GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h (critical), fixed in 2.0.8 |
| telemetry-server/package-lock.json | telemetry-server/package-lock.json — body-parser 1.19.0: GHSA-27r3-jxmh-p828 (high), fixed in 1.20.9 |
| package-lock.json | package-lock.json — body-parser 2.3.0: GHSA-27r3-jxmh-p828 (high), fixed in 2.4.0 |
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 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; 2 steps pipe a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/lint-test.yml | .github/workflows/lint-test.yml:22 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/release.yml | .github/workflows/release.yml:58 — action pinned by tag |
| scripts/linux-package.sh | scripts/linux-package.sh:51 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 SQL statement built from strings
adequate1 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| telemetry-server/telemetry-server.ts | telemetry-server/telemetry-server.ts:14 — SQL built from a string |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
4 shell commands built from strings
adequate4 places run a command through a shell (`shell=True`, `os.system`, `exec` with a template) rather than passing arguments. Where any part comes from outside, it is command injection. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| src/service/service.ts | src/service/service.ts:199 — command run through a shell |
| src/service/service.ts | src/service/service.ts:214 — command run through a shell |
| src/service/service.ts | src/service/service.ts:229 — command run through a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Relicensed: MIT → Apache-2.0 (2016-06-30) → AGPL-3.0 (2016-07-09) → MIT (2019-10-26)
adequateThe root licence changed 3 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".
| c16099d14 | LICENSE — MIT from 2014-11-09 |
| 01ba7b15c | LICENSE — Apache-2.0 from 2016-06-30 |
| 0a22aa3ef | LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 from 2016-07-09 |
| 3042439a8 | LICENSE — MIT from 2019-10-26 |
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.
7 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 6 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-12. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed 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-j55p-v9rg-r9f2 | 2026-10-12: GHSA-j55p-v9rg-r9f2 (moderate), fixed in 10.2.4: LISTEN_ACCEPT/LISTEN_REJECT bypass Valve permissions allowing listen-provider hijack |
| GHSA-g4qj-f7jp-76c6 | 2026-10-12: GHSA-g4qj-f7jp-76c6 (high), fixed in 10.2.1: Incomplete prototype pollution fix: UPDATE action bypasses isValidPath key validation |
| GHSA-v448-hpx6-fm45 | 2026-10-11: GHSA-v448-hpx6-fm45 (high), fixed in 10.2.3: Bulk record authorization denial removes the wrong name and exposes private subscriptions |
| GHSA-9r5v-rrr7-v476 | 2026-10-02: GHSA-9r5v-rrr7-v476 (high), fixed in 10.2.0: Unauthenticated Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via listener patterns |
| GHSA-rv32-v8hf-rxqg | 2026-09-11: GHSA-rv32-v8hf-rxqg (high), fixed in 10.2.2: Unauthenticated remote denial of service via sdkType in the pre-auth CHALLENGE message |
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 247 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 247 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
9 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 repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverageNot rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them.
- Which of the people who wrote this are part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in src/, bin/, conf/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 1 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/deepstreamio/deepstream.io/d7b2410)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 — 90 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 90 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 1,455 · top5 share 0.096 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 19 · per kloc 0.58 · lines read 32,669 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.528 · early delete per insert 0.766 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 100 · compat files 0 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 3 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.print_logging | raw prints are few, or outnumbered by logger callsprints 20 · logger calls 125 |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 15 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.knowledge_silos | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 2 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 96 · source 196 · test ratio 0.49 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 171 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 1,678 · low content share 0.117 |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 2 · with tests 2 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 2 |
| 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 1 · ci configs 2 · product files 100 |
| 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 54 · share of insertions 0.0002 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.34 · repeat share 0.079 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 125 · write once share 0.104 |
| 01.oversized_modules | no module is an outlier against this codebase's own normlargest 733 · threshold 1,000 · median lines 80 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.003 · product files 100 · distinct blocks 9,796 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 32,889 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 2 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 247 |
| 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_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 203,584 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 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.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 65 · added in two years 2 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 10.0 · days since last tag 16 · commits last 90 days 6 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 20 · on branch 150 · tags in window 170 |
| 03.single_maintainer | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 05.project_advisories | no published advisory affects the surveyed versionaffecting 0 · exploited 0 · advisories 7 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 31
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | not enough code written in either half to compare |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | too few fixes in 24 months to judge |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | a reporting host is named, but no setting shows whether it is used by default |
| 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.release_markers | fewer than 100 commits in the last year |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.revert_share | too few recent commits to judge how often change is undone |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 02.commit_size | too few recent commits |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 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.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 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 |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 8Y7V-GDPC-NH96 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/8Y7VGDPCNH96?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: 11.0authenticated: False |
| 1.9s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 3.5s | read the git history | commits: 1858tracked files: 271 |
| 30.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 30.6s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 39.1s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 39.1s | deleting the working copy |
Total 39.1s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).