461f32e · 17,368 commits · 14,851 files
Issued 2026-09-30
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Product & Engineering Maturity, Security & Reliability Posture.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 7 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/CONTRIBUTING.md:3
- 5 submodule(s) this survey does not read: tests/util/std, tests/wpt/suite, tests/node_compat/runner/suite .gitmodules:1
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 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 | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 16% 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 · adequate · ratings ↑cli/tsc/dts/lib.webworker.d.ts is 15,608 lines, 1560× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 10 lines. 217 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 15,608. 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.
| line-count | cli/tsc/dts/lib.webworker.d.ts:1 — 15,608 lines (1560× median) |
| line-count | runtime/permissions/lib.rs:1 — 11,757 lines (1175× median) |
| line-count | cli/tsc/dts/typescript.d.ts:1 — 11,511 lines (1151× median) |
| line-count | ext/node/ops/llhttp/c/llhttp.c:1 — 10,103 lines (1010× median) |
| line-count | libs/cli_parser/src/tests_full.rs:1 — 9,995 lines (999× 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 ↑22% of the code is legacy or compatibility code, the oldest 43 months old
adequate308 of 1428 source files sit in paths named legacy, compat, shim, polyfill or deprecated, and some have been there 43 months. That is usually a migration that never finished. Ask whether finishing it is planned, and what keeping both costs.
| cli/tsc/dts/node/compatibility/iterators.d.cts | cli/tsc/dts/node/compatibility/iterators.d.cts — legacy or compatibility code |
| ext/node/polyfills/01_require.js | ext/node/polyfills/01_require.js — legacy or compatibility code |
| ext/node/polyfills/02_register_cloneable.js | ext/node/polyfills/02_register_cloneable.js — legacy or compatibility code |
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.
8 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate8 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Apr 2023. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
| ext/node/polyfills/internal/crypto/keygen.ts | ext/node/polyfills/internal/crypto/keygen.ts — deprecated since Apr 2023 |
| cli/tsc/dts/lib.dom.d.ts | cli/tsc/dts/lib.dom.d.ts — deprecated since Jul 2023 |
| cli/tsc/dts/lib.webworker.d.ts | cli/tsc/dts/lib.webworker.d.ts — deprecated since Jul 2023 |
| cli/tsc/dts/typescript.d.ts | cli/tsc/dts/typescript.d.ts — deprecated since Jul 2023 |
| cli/tsc/dts/lib.deno.unstable.d.ts | cli/tsc/dts/lib.deno.unstable.d.ts — deprecated since Aug 2023 |
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.
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v2.9.7, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v2.9.2. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
| 0c071246a | tag v2.9.7 |
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 ↑The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate7 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
| .github/workflows/cargo_publish.ts | .github/workflows/cargo_publish.ts:41 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/cargo_publish.ts | .github/workflows/cargo_publish.ts:44 — action pinned by tag |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
18 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 1 high or critical
adequate18 of 1,126 locked dependencies match 20 published advisories in OSV, 1 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.
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — hickory-proto 0.25.2: GHSA-3v94-mw7p-v465 (high) |
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — rsa 0.9.10: RUSTSEC-2023-0071 (moderate) |
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — rand 0.8.5: GHSA-cq8v-f236-94qc (low), fixed in 0.8.6 |
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.
24 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 11 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-06-17. 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 8 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 2.9.2. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
| GHSA-x2qc-cmh9-f4hf | 2026-06-17: GHSA-x2qc-cmh9-f4hf (moderate), fixed in 2.7.5: Denial of service via non-ASCII bytes in WebSocket response headers |
| GHSA-4c8g-jvcx-v4hv | 2026-05-27: GHSA-4c8g-jvcx-v4hv (moderate), fixed in 2.8.1: process.loadEnvFile() bypasses env permission checks and mutates process.env with only read access |
| GHSA-83pc-3rw9-qpwj | 2026-05-27: GHSA-83pc-3rw9-qpwj (moderate), fixed in 2.8.1: WebSocket API sandbox bypass via missing post-DNS check |
| GHSA-cpgj-f7g3-2pp2 | 2026-05-27: GHSA-cpgj-f7g3-2pp2 (moderate), fixed in 2.8.1: `fetch()` API sandbox bypass via missing DNS resolution check |
| GHSA-v8fw-85r8-5m23 | 2026-05-27: GHSA-v8fw-85r8-5m23 (moderate), fixed in 2.8.0: Deno Node TCPWrap numeric hostname aliases bypass --deny-net resolved-IP deny checks |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
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
2 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 (doc/architecture.md). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- 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 coverage- measured 1,226 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 2,911 commits landed in the last year, against 1,961 the year before (+48%). 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 05.5 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.
- 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 coverageNot rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Rust codebase, with TypeScript alongside (31% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Rust in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in cli/, ext/, libs/. 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/denoland/deno/461f32e)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.
- 2200b3e 2026-09-25 · adequate
Rejection log — 98 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 98 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 — 66
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 35,532 · top5 share 0.033 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 850 · per kloc 0.67 · lines read 1,277,293 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.603 · early delete per insert 0.613 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 2,999 · share 0.736 · with tests 2,206 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 8,653 |
| 06.structured_logging | not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | reporting is off until someone turns it onsettings on 0 · settings off 3 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 8.4 · window last 24 months · authors 1,226 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 1,226 · active 12mo 202 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 1,226 · directories 6 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 1,226 · one off share 0.626 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 1,226 · 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 337 |
| 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 16 · joined 32 · regular last year 53 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 1,634 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 22 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 4,917 · source 6,073 · test ratio 0.81 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 442 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 17,362 · low content share 0.012 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 22 · with tests 5 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 6 · test files 12,943 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 22 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.01 · reverts 49 · recent commits 4,873 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 9 · commits since 1 · days since lockfile changed 4 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 3 · ci configs 22 · product files 1,428 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.026 · commits 4,261 · over 2000 lines 110 |
| 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 66 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 18.31 · repeat share 0.004 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,647 · write once share 0.231 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0059 · product files 1,426 · distinct blocks 538,992 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,285,691 · files 1 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | JavaScript to TypeScript: the new language's share has not risen steadily, so the two are deliberate layers, not a migrationmigration JavaScript to TypeScript · new share now 0.232 · new share at start 1.0 |
| 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 8,653 |
| 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.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.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 212 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 2 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 2 · stated in headers or notices 2 |
| 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.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 390 · added in two years 228 · removed within 60 days 5 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 8.0 · days since last tag 5 · commits last 90 days 576 |
| 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 — 32
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no dependency manifest of the product's own was found |
| 04.test_growth | tests are kept inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile outside development, test and example paths |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 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 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 22 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version is only known to be at least 2.9.2 |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter Z4MX-HRHN-JHZK 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/Z4MXHRHNJHZK?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-30 · shown | borehole 0.7.8 | 8 | adequate |
20 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 8 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 8 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 8 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 8 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.0 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-24 | borehole 0.4.0 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-24 | borehole 0.4.0.dev2 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-24 | borehole 0.4.0.dev1 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-23 | borehole 0.1.0.dev0 | 6 | strong |
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 | authenticated: False |
| 42.3s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 87.6s | read the git history | commits: 17368tracked files: 14851 |
| 356.7s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 356.7s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 532.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 532.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 532.0s ·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).