fb92592 · 16,113 commits · 8,696 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Reads strong: 4 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
100 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Observability & Operations are adequate. 1 finding is worth checking first. 12 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 2 November 2026.
This repository reads strong. Show it in your README: the badge links to a page where anyone can check the reading. 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/MCTS08SFCVKW?via=badge)- This repository is a mirror; development happens elsewhere docs/README.md:87
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here may be significant, and 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.
- 05.45 2 workload settings give a container the host
- 6 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 5 credential-shaped matches are withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 41% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑dojo/finding/ui/views.py is 3,472 lines, 51× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 67 lines. 27 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,472. 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 | dojo/finding/ui/views.py:1 — 3,472 lines (51× median) |
| line-count | dojo/db_migrations/0304_archive_columns.py:1 — 3,340 lines (49× median) |
| line-count | dojo/db_migrations/0001_squashed_0090_index_duplicate_finding.py:1 — 3,244 lines (48× median) |
| line-count | dojo/utils.py:1 — 2,477 lines (36× median) |
| line-count | dojo/settings/settings.dist.py:1 — 2,389 lines (35× 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.
4% of code blocks appear verbatim in more than one file
adequate3,336 distinct 8-line blocks appear in two or more files. Copy-paste is the cheapest thing a generator does and among the more expensive things to inherit: a fix has to be applied everywhere the block landed, and nothing in the repository records where that is. Tests, fixtures and documentation examples are excluded — those repeat by design — so this is duplication in code that ships. Blocks are matched after normalising whitespace and only across different files.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 8 files: dojo/asset/api/views.py, dojo/endpoint/api/views.py, dojo/engagement/api/views.py |
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 8 files: dojo/asset/api/views.py, dojo/endpoint/api/views.py, dojo/engagement/api/views.py |
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 8 files: dojo/asset/api/views.py, dojo/endpoint/api/views.py, dojo/engagement/api/views.py |
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 8 files: dojo/asset/api/views.py, dojo/endpoint/api/views.py, dojo/engagement/api/views.py |
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 8 files: dojo/asset/api/views.py, dojo/endpoint/api/views.py, dojo/engagement/api/views.py |
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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑20 credential-shaped strings committed to the tree
adequateMatches for AWS access key, GitHub token, Google API key, JWT appear in tracked files outside test and fixture paths. They stay in the history even after they leave the tree, so what matters is whether each was rotated. The code cannot tell whether any of them is live, and that decides whether this matters: none sits in production configuration, and none is in a format its provider keeps for live keys. Is any of these live? Show that each was rotated after it was committed, and when. 1 other match set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
| AWS access key | 5 cited: AWS access key pattern matched |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
2 workload settings give a container the host
adequate worth checking first2 places in the deployment configuration run a container privileged or in the host's network, process or IPC namespace. A compromise of that container is a compromise of the machine, and most acquirers' security reviews block it. Node agents (network, storage, monitoring) are excluded.
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 unittests/scans/kubelinter/many.yaml:19 and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| unittests/scans/kubelinter/many.yaml | unittests/scans/kubelinter/many.yaml:19 — privileged or host namespace |
| unittests/scans/polaris/many.yaml | unittests/scans/polaris/many.yaml:19 — privileged or host namespace |
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.
6 SQL statements built from strings
adequate6 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.
| dojo/auditlog/backfill.py | dojo/auditlog/backfill.py:169 — SQL built from a string |
| dojo/auditlog/backfill.py | dojo/auditlog/backfill.py:181 — SQL built from a string |
| dojo/auditlog/backfill.py | dojo/auditlog/backfill.py:312 — 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.
3 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 6 high or critical
adequate3 of 401 locked dependencies match 10 published advisories in OSV, 6 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| components/yarn.lock | components/yarn.lock — @vue/server-renderer 3.5.41: GHSA-g2v6-rqmx-r4w6 (high), fixed in 3.5.42 |
| components/yarn.lock | components/yarn.lock — undici 7.29.1: GHSA-2m5v-pch6-74hx (high), fixed in 7.30.1 |
| components/yarn.lock | components/yarn.lock — zod 4.5.4: 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.
2 vendored components with no licence
adequateThird-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| dojo/static/dojo/js/vendor/alpine.min.js | dojo/static/dojo/js/vendor/alpine.min.js — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| dojo/static/dojo/js/vendor/htmx.min.js | dojo/static/dojo/js/vendor/htmx.min.js — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
74 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 5 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-11-02. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 4 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 3.5.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| GHSA-xr4w-vf88-w48v | 2026-11-02: GHSA-xr4w-vf88-w48v (low), fixed in 3.3.300: Risk acceptance page let a removed member delete their own notes in other products |
| GHSA-4chj-hx9x-6m59 | 2026-11-02: GHSA-4chj-hx9x-6m59 (moderate), fixed in 3.3.300: Cross-product disclosure of per-location finding counts through the report builder |
| GHSA-hprf-883v-c8h8 | 2026-11-02: GHSA-hprf-883v-c8h8 (low), fixed in 3.4.200: File title check on the API introduced in 3.3.0 revealed whether a file title existed in other organizations |
| GHSA-r68c-qm7x-4926 | 2026-11-02: GHSA-r68c-qm7x-4926 (moderate), fixed in 3.4.100: API token expiry was not enforced on the API introduced in 3.3.0 |
| GHSA-r83j-v49f-m87m | 2026-10-12: GHSA-r83j-v49f-m87m (moderate), fixed in 3.4.0: User account details were readable through an API read path introduced in 3.3.0 |
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.
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 7,468 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.
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.
Schema migrations run every time a container starts
adequateThe start command runs the database migration and then the server, and the deployment runs more than one replica. Replicas race to migrate, a rollback cannot undo the schema, and a failed migration takes the service down with it. A separate job or release step is the usual fix.
| run-unittest.sh | run-unittest.sh:62 — migration in the start command |
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.
An error reporter is installed but never initialised
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
8 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured The tree carries design documentation (docs/assets/diagrams/Asset_Hierarchy_Full.drawio and 4 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 562 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured 1,658 commits landed in the last year, against 935 the year before (+77%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 05.1 and 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- measured A threat model is in the tree (docs/content/sensei/threat_modeling.de.md). Does it name the assets this code actually handles, and is it current against the deployment?
- 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 Python codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in dojo/, unittests/, docker/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 39% of lines added in the last 12 months (9% 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 (Dockerfile.django-alpine and 35 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/defectdojo/django-defectdojo/fb92592)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 — 88 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 88 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 — 72
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 17,329 · top5 share 0.053 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 620 · per kloc 0.44 · lines read 1,406,210 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.532 · early test per code 0.055 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.48 · early delete per insert 0.108 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 581 · share 0.53 · with tests 308 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 966 · compat files 1 |
| 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 12 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.print_logging | raw prints are few, or outnumbered by logger callsprints 3 · logger calls 889 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 1 · settings off 0 |
| 06.probes_identical | readiness and liveness are distinct, or not both setidentical 0 · workloads with both 5 |
| 06.single_replica | an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 12 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 69 · release commits 1 · changelog commits 66 |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 11.6 · window last 24 months · authors 562 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 562 · active 12mo 85 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 562 · directories 6 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 562 · one off share 0.516 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 562 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 150 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 8 · joined 12 · regular last year 23 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 665 · window last 24 months · with tracked 40 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 32 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 766 · source 1,730 · test ratio 0.443 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 340 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 13,445 · low content share 0.016 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 32 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 1 · test files 893 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 32 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 4 · recent commits 2,600 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 160 · days since lockfile changed 11 |
| 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 32 · product files 966 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.03 · commits 2,198 · over 2000 lines 65 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 29 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 32.93 · repeat share 0.142 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,413,006 · files 11 · per kloc 0.01 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 99 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 2 |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 1 |
| 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.resource_limits | every workload declares limitsworkloads 12 · without limits 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.cleartext_traffic | plain HTTP is not allowed app-widesites 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 2 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as BSD-3-Clauseclass permissive · license BSD-3-Clause |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 42 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 218 · added in two years 34 · 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 |
| 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 1.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 1,098 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 1 · on branch 329 · tags in window 330 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 16
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 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.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 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.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 4 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version could not be placed |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter MCTS-08SF-CVKW 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/MCTS08SFCVKW?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: 934.7authenticated: False |
| 141.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 162.3s | read the git history | commits: 16113tracked files: 8696 |
| 448.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 448.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 677.8s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 677.8s | deleting the working copy |
Total 677.8s ·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).