54f9e87 · 6,254 commits · 5,659 files
Issued 2026-11-07
FSL-1.1-MIT since 2026-08-25: source available, not open source; a competing commercial product or service is not allowed; each version becomes MIT two years after its release.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 13 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.60 FSL-1.1-MIT since 2026-08-25: source available, not open source; a competing commercial product or service is not allowed; each version becomes MIT two years after its release
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 28 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 22 high or critical in what ships
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 18% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑ee/apps/den-api/src/routes/org/plugin-system/store.ts is 8,463 lines, 91× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 93 lines. 100 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 8,463. 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 | ee/apps/den-api/src/routes/org/plugin-system/store.ts:1 — 8,463 lines (91× median) |
| line-count | apps/server/src/server.ts:1 — 6,750 lines (72× median) |
| line-count | apps/app/src/react-app/shell/session-route.tsx:1 — 4,371 lines (47× median) |
| line-count | ee/apps/den-api/src/routes/org/mcp-connections.ts:1 — 4,238 lines (45× median) |
| line-count | apps/app/src/app/lib/den.ts:1 — 4,024 lines (43× 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 · adequate · ratings ↑7% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate374 of 5011 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| git log --numstat | 374 commits over 2,000 lines |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 5,800 non-merge commits among 69 authors; across all history, more than half of 5,800. This is the single most expensive thing to discover after closing, and the repository cannot tell you whether that person is part of the transaction.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 5,800 commits; bus factor 1; 69 authors |
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 · 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 ↑1 Dockerfile runs the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
| no-USER-instruction | packaging/docker/Dockerfile — runs as root |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
28 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 22 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first28 of 2,202 locked dependencies match 47 published advisories in OSV, 25 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening pnpm-lock.yaml settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — @sentry/nextjs 10.64.0: GHSA-mchm-gjx6-7h55 (critical), fixed in 10.75.2 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — better-auth 1.7.0-beta.10: GHSA-965c-763c-88jm (critical), fixed in 1.7.7 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — dompurify 3.4.16: GHSA-cg2g-xh64-v4q7 (critical), fixed in 3.4.17 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Relicensed: MIT → FSL-1.1-MIT (2026-08-25)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). The latest terms restrict what users, hosts or a buyer may do in ways the earlier ones did not. Code taken under the old terms stays under them, so both matter in diligence.
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.
Part of the code is under a separate licence: ee/
adequateA directory named for a paid edition carries its own licence. That code is usually not open source even where the rest is; what the buyer may do with each part differs.
| ee/LICENSE | ee/LICENSE — licence: FSL-1.1-MIT |
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
adequate6 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; 4 steps pipe a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/build-electron-desktop.yml | .github/workflows/build-electron-desktop.yml:44 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/build-electron-desktop.yml | .github/workflows/build-electron-desktop.yml:54 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/celld-runner-deploy.yml | .github/workflows/celld-runner-deploy.yml:113 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
3 SQL statements built from strings
adequate3 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 2 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.
| apps/server/src/opencode-v2-history-store.ts | apps/server/src/opencode-v2-history-store.ts:217 — SQL built from a string |
| ee/apps/headless-runner/src/worker/sql.ts | ee/apps/headless-runner/src/worker/sql.ts:20 — SQL built from a string |
| ee/packages/den-db/src/schema-repairs.ts | ee/packages/den-db/src/schema-repairs.ts:126 — 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 of 3 Kubernetes workloads declare no resource limits
adequate3 workload manifests set no CPU or memory limits. One pod that leaks memory or spins can starve everything else on its node, and the scheduler cannot plan capacity for what it cannot see.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| packaging/helm/openwork-ee/templates/den-api.yaml | packaging/helm/openwork-ee/templates/den-api.yaml — workload with no limits |
| packaging/helm/openwork-ee/templates/den-web.yaml | packaging/helm/openwork-ee/templates/den-web.yaml — workload with no limits |
| packaging/helm/openwork-ee/templates/inference.yaml | packaging/helm/openwork-ee/templates/inference.yaml — workload with no limits |
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.
13 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate13 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| apps/app/src/components/chat/shell-command-text.tsx | apps/app/src/components/chat/shell-command-text.tsx:55 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/app/src/components/markdown/mermaid.ts | apps/app/src/components/markdown/mermaid.ts:357 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/app/src/react-app/domains/session/artifacts/markdown-live-preview.ts | apps/app/src/react-app/domains/session/artifacts/markdown-live-preview.ts:264 — HTML from a variable |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The licence is FSL-1.1-MIT: source available, not open source
adequateLICENSE grants FSL-1.1-MIT: source available, not open source; a competing commercial product or service is not allowed; each version becomes MIT two years after its release. The reading comes from the licence's own title and clauses. Whether the terms fit the buyer's intended use, and whether any paid licence transfers with the code, is a question for counsel and the licensor.
A note that does not affect this rating: it names the project's licence, a fact for the first screen rather than a weakness.
| LICENSE | LICENSE:1 — 36 lines, FSL-1.1-MIT |
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 4,403 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.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
5 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured The tree carries design documentation (DESIGN.md and 2 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 One contributor authored more than half of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (ee/packages/den-db/drizzle/0135_restore_legacy_analytics.sql). Has a restore ever been rehearsed, and how long did it take?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in ee/, apps/, packages/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (ee/apps/den-worker-runtime/Dockerfile.daytona-desktop and 84 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/different-ai/openwork/54f9e87)If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
Rejection log — 90 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 90 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 65
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 12,646 · top5 share 0.024 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 42 · per kloc 0.02 · lines read 2,334,288 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.625 · early test per code 0.027 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.474 · early delete per insert 0.61 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 2,616 · share 0.517 · with tests 1,353 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 3,474 · compat files 4 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 150 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 211 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 3 · config files 5 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 3 · settings off 11 |
| 06.probes_identical | readiness and liveness are distinct, or not both setidentical 0 · workloads with both 3 |
| 06.single_replica | workloads run more than one replicaworkloads 3 · single replica 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 2 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 2,441 · release commits 5 · changelog commits 50 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 69 · directories 10 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 69 · one off share 0.522 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 69 · top share more than half · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 69 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 110 · window last 24 months · with tracked 34 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 50 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 717 · source 4,172 · test ratio 0.172 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 2,441 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 6,144 · low content share 0.006 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 50 · with tests 6 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 737 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 50 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.012 · reverts 67 · recent commits 5,800 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 55 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 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 12 · ci configs 50 · product files 3,474 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.0 · merges 87 · long lived 0 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 14,932 · share of insertions 0.0029 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 20.11 · repeat share 0.01 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 4,077 · write once share 0.428 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0027 · product files 3,455 · distinct blocks 560,191 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 2,338,449 · files 55 · per kloc 0.04 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 2 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture 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 4,403 |
| 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.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.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 2.0 · days since last tag -13 · commits last 90 days 2,396 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release, v0.18.65, was made after the surveyed commit on the branch surveyedelsewhere 305 · on branch 108 · tags in window 417 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 25
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 |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | history too short to distinguish active from historical contributors |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | too little history |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | the history scanned covers 7 months, less than the 12 this question needs |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | the history scanned covers 7 months, less than the 18 this question needs |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | the history scanned covers 7 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.dependency_churn | the history scanned covers 7 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | the history scanned covers 7 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm openwork-server (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm opencode-openwork (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm openwork-ui-mcp (an empty record for a package published here) did not |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; OSV npm openwork-server (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm opencode-openwork (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm openwork-ui-mcp (an empty record for a package published here) did not answer |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited list |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter NT01-S8X4-M1Y3 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/NT01S8X4M1Y3?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: 442.8authenticated: False |
| 54.0s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 82.5s | read the git history | commits: 6254tracked files: 5659 |
| 506.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 507.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 814.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 814.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 814.0s ·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).