d12a1cf · 4,612 commits · 17,701 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
101 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 19 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 05.26 14 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 19 high or critical in what ships
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 5 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 15% 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 ↑The repository begins with most of itself already written
adequateThe first commit carries 4,231,374 lines — 41% of every line ever added. Whatever happened before that commit happened somewhere this repository cannot show you, so the early history is not available as evidence of how the system was designed.
| f97440a | 2020-10-28T11:31:48+00:00; +4,231,374 across 8624 files; subject: 'Initial commit' |
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 model weight file committed directly to git
adequate1 model weight files are stored in git itself, not in LFS, DVC or a model hub. Every clone carries them, the history keeps every version for good, and nothing records which run or data produced them.
| vendor/sigs.k8s.io/kustomize/kyaml/openapi/kubernetesapi/v1_21_2/swagger.pb | vendor/sigs.k8s.io/kustomize/kyaml/openapi/kubernetesapi/v1_21_2/swagger.pb — weights in git |
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.
pkg/pipeline/DeploymentPipelineConfigService.go is 3,263 lines, 62× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 52 lines. 40 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,263. 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 | pkg/pipeline/DeploymentPipelineConfigService.go:1 — 3,263 lines (62× median) |
| line-count | pkg/pipeline/CiCdPipelineOrchestrator.go:1 — 2,706 lines (52× median) |
| line-count | api/restHandler/app/pipeline/configure/DeploymentPipelineRestHandler.go:1 — 2,540 lines (48× median) |
| line-count | api/restHandler/CoreAppRestHandler.go:1 — 2,469 lines (47× median) |
| line-count | pkg/plugin/GlobalPluginService.go:1 — 2,402 lines (46× 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 · adequate · ratings ↑Regular contributors fell from 27 to 12 in a year
adequate14 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 3 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.
| regular contributors by year | 27 then 12; 14 stopped committing, 3 began |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑98 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatego.mod declares 98 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.
| direct-dependencies | go.mod — 98 declared |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
11% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 321 fixes in the last 24 months, 34 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| fix commits touching tests | 34 of 321 |
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 pinned runtimes are past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Go 1.22 (end of life 2025-02-11); Go 1.25 (end of life 2026-08-11). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2025-02-11. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| sample-docker-templates/go/Dockerfile | sample-docker-templates/go/Dockerfile — Go 1.22, end of life 2025-02-11 |
| Dockerfile | Dockerfile — Go 1.25, end of life 2026-08-11 |
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.
17 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate17 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Aug 2024. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| vendor/cloud.google.com/go/compute/metadata/metadata.go | vendor/cloud.google.com/go/compute/metadata/metadata.go — deprecated since Aug 2024 |
| vendor/github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go/aws/endpoints/defaults.go | vendor/github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go/aws/endpoints/defaults.go — deprecated since Sep 2024 |
| vendor/k8s.io/api/core/v1/types.go | vendor/k8s.io/api/core/v1/types.go — deprecated since Sep 2024 |
| vendor/k8s.io/api/core/v1/types_swagger_doc_generated.go | vendor/k8s.io/api/core/v1/types_swagger_doc_generated.go — deprecated since Sep 2024 |
| vendor/k8s.io/client-go/util/workqueue/delaying_queue.go | vendor/k8s.io/client-go/util/workqueue/delaying_queue.go — deprecated since Sep 2024 |
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 ↑14 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 19 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first14 of 319 locked dependencies match 35 published advisories in OSV, 20 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening go.mod settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| go.mod | go.mod — github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2 v2.14.20: GHSA-fmxq-cgp8-87wp (critical) |
| go.mod | go.mod — github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v3 v3.5.13: GHSA-3775-99mw-8rp4 (high), fixed in 3.7.14 |
| go.mod | go.mod — github.com/getkin/kin-openapi v0.132.0: GHSA-74vm-87hj-r66f (high), fixed in 0.146.0 |
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.
1 workload setting can give a container the host, behind a chart value or in a stack built from source
adequate1 places run a container privileged or in the host's namespaces only when a Helm value switches them on, or in a compose file that builds the product from this repository, which is how it is developed rather than how it ships. Neither is on by default in what ships. Ask whether production sets the value or runs that stack.
| contrib-chart/reference-chart_3-11-0/templates/deployment.yaml | contrib-chart/reference-chart_3-11-0/templates/deployment.yaml:138 — host access behind a setting or in a local stack |
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 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-08-31. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries.
| CVE-2026-82882 | 2026-08-31: CVE-2026-82882 (high): Devtron through 2.2.0 fails to enforce authorization checks on the GET /orchestrator/api-token/webhook endpoint, allowing authenticated users to retrieve admin |
| GO-2026-4416 | 2026-02-04: GO-2026-4416 (critical): Devtron Attributes API Unauthorized Access Leading to API Token Signing Key Leakage in github.com/devtron-labs/devtron |
| GHSA-q78v-cv36-8fxj | 2024-11-07: GHSA-q78v-cv36-8fxj (high), fixed in 0.7.2: Devtron has SQL Injection in CreateUser API |
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
adequate5 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/chart-sync.yaml | .github/workflows/chart-sync.yaml:25 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/helm-chart-lint.yaml | .github/workflows/helm-chart-lint.yaml:15 — 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.
2 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate2 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| util/HttpUtil.go | util/HttpUtil.go:46 — outbound call without a timeout |
| util/helper.go | util/helper.go:150 — outbound call without a timeout |
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. 1 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. 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.
| internal/sql/repository/dockerRegistry/DockerArtifactStoreRepository.go | internal/sql/repository/dockerRegistry/DockerArtifactStoreRepository.go:218 — 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.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 19 of 20 workloads
adequateBoth probes call the same endpoint. When a dependency slows down, the liveness probe fails with the readiness probe, so the platform restarts pods that only needed taking out of rotation, and a partial outage becomes a full one. Liveness should ask whether the process is alive; readiness whether it can serve.
| charts/devtron/templates/athena-api.yaml | charts/devtron/templates/athena-api.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| charts/devtron/templates/casbin.yaml | charts/devtron/templates/casbin.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| charts/devtron/templates/dashboard.yaml | charts/devtron/templates/dashboard.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
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.
| sample-docker-templates/django/start-server.sh | sample-docker-templates/django/start-server.sh:4 — 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.
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.
9 of 78 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate9 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| charts/devtron/values.yaml | charts/devtron/values.yaml:47 — image without a version |
| charts/devtron/values.yaml | charts/devtron/values.yaml:246 — image without a version |
| charts/devtron/templates/migrator.yaml | charts/devtron/templates/migrator.yaml:682 — image without a version |
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 code branches on the environment's name at 47 places
adequate47 places outside configuration test whether they are running in production or staging. Staging then does not exercise production's code, and each deploy is the first run of those branches. Differences belong in configuration the code reads, not in the code.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| internal/sql/repository/AppListingRepository.go | internal/sql/repository/AppListingRepository.go:52 — branch on the environment name |
| internal/sql/repository/AppListingRepository.go | internal/sql/repository/AppListingRepository.go:549 — branch on the environment name |
| internal/sql/repository/AppListingRepository.go | internal/sql/repository/AppListingRepository.go:555 — branch on the environment name |
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
10 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 No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 13,516 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- 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 119 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- measured contrib-chart/ (less than a quarter of the files) has not changed in 18 months while the rest of the repository moved. Is that code finished, or abandoned, and who still knows how it works?
- 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 143 commits landed in the last year, against 1,123 the year before (-87%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three.
- 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.
- 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 Alert rules are defined in the repository. 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 Go codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in vendor/, pkg/, api/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 131 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/devtron-labs/devtron/d12a1cf)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 — 82 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 82 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 — 68
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 26,962 · top5 share 0.021 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 290 · per kloc 0.43 · lines read 682,164 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.501 · early delete per insert 0.29 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 11,783 · compat files 16 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 82 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 481 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.print_logging | raw prints are few, or outnumbered by logger callsprints 57 · logger calls 292 |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 13 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.alert_rules | alert rules are defined as codealert files 77 |
| 06.single_replica | an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 44 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 4 · release commits 4 · changelog commits 6 |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 6.0 · window last 24 months · authors 119 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 119 · active 12mo 22 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 119 · directories 9 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 119 · one off share 0.286 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 119 · 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 42 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 651 · window last 24 months · with tracked 4 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 66 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 188 · source 1,321 · test ratio 0.142 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 159 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 3,770 · low content share 0.063 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 347 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 66 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 2 · recent commits 1,267 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 5 · days since lockfile changed 32 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.214 · merges 140 · long lived 30 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.042 · commits 1,142 · over 2000 lines 48 |
| 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.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 24.12 · repeat share 0.118 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,482 · write once share 0.302 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0043 · product files 1,133 · distinct blocks 179,063 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 685,387 · files 1 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 14 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture paths; the only other matches are expired or licence tokens or placeholders, which grant nothingnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 4,421 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | dependencies are substantially pinnedunpinned 0 |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | every shipped Dockerfile drops to a non-root user or builds on a non-root base imagedockerfiles 9 |
| 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.resource_limits | every workload declares limitsworkloads 44 · 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.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 12,176 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 16 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 16 · stated in headers or notices 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 257 · added in two years 158 · removed within 60 days 2 |
| 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 27.0 · days since last tag 94 · commits last 90 days 59 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 140 · on branch 19 · tags in window 159 |
| 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 — 14
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 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.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 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.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 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 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter B18J-0R94-DB3C 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/B18J0R94DB3C?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: 341.0authenticated: False |
| 37.8s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 57.4s | read the git history | commits: 4612tracked files: 17701 |
| 352.7s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 352.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 523.6s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 523.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 523.6s ·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).