bffc365 · 1,841 commits · 1,930 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Observability & Operations, Security & Reliability Posture.
106 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 11 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- names OpenSSF .github/SECURITY.md:11
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 6 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 30 high or critical in what ships
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 87% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- deep scan blamed 1,929 of 1,929 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`
adequate1 of 3 `FROM` lines in product Dockerfiles name an image without a version, or with `latest`. Each build pulls whatever the registry serves that day, so the image that ships can change without a commit, and last month's build cannot be reproduced. Pin a version, or a digest.
| .actor/Dockerfile | .actor/Dockerfile:23 — base 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.
docling/backend/html_backend.py is 5,552 lines, 27× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 200 lines. 10 files exceed 2,000 lines, the largest being 5,552. 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 | docling/backend/html_backend.py:1 — 5,552 lines (27× median) |
| line-count | docling/backend/msword_backend.py:1 — 5,132 lines (25× median) |
| line-count | docling/backend/msexcel_backend.py:1 — 2,916 lines (14× median) |
| line-count | docling/backend/opendocument_backend.py:1 — 2,678 lines (13× median) |
| line-count | docling/datamodel/pipeline_options.py:1 — 2,488 lines (12× 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 ↑6% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate90 of 1411 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 | 90 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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑Node.js 20 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 20 (end of life 2026-04-30). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2026-04-30. 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.
| .actor/Dockerfile | .actor/Dockerfile — Node.js 20, end of life 2026-04-30 |
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 ↑1 Dockerfile runs the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
| no-USER-instruction | Dockerfile — runs as root |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
6 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 30 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first6 of 427 locked dependencies match 65 published advisories in OSV, 30 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 uv.lock settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| uv.lock | uv.lock — pillow 12.3.0: GHSA-332p-7hrc-92wf (critical), fixed in 13.0.0 |
| uv.lock | uv.lock — filelock 4.1.0: GHSA-v4x8-3wr5-3wq8 (high), fixed in 4.2.1 |
| uv.lock | uv.lock — fsspec 2024.6.1: GHSA-27vj-qcqg-25rc (high), fixed in 2026.6.0 |
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.
35 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 10 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-23. 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 5 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 2.146.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 3 records name docling with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-78163, CVE-2026-95628, CVE-2026-95629).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| GHSA-cvvj-vhrh-gxp9 | 2026-10-23: GHSA-cvvj-vhrh-gxp9 (moderate), fixed in 2.142.1: Format detection reads the ZIP mimetype member without a size limit, so a small archive can exhaust memory |
| GHSA-h8jf-9f4f-2v9h | 2026-10-23: GHSA-h8jf-9f4f-2v9h (moderate), fixed in 2.142.1: Tectonic TikZ pre-check can be bypassed, allowing arbitrary file read and write |
| GHSA-m5xp-wvrj-48wx | 2026-10-23: GHSA-m5xp-wvrj-48wx (moderate), fixed in 2.142.1: Image backend decodes every frame before max_num_pages applies, so a small multi-frame image can exhaust memory |
| GHSA-969p-q7h6-6fr8 | 2026-10-23: GHSA-969p-q7h6-6fr8 (moderate), fixed in 2.142.1: DOCX and XLSX backends decompress archive members without an effective size limit, so a small file can exhaust memory |
| GHSA-c2w9-g7hj-xcr8 | 2026-10-23: GHSA-c2w9-g7hj-xcr8 (moderate), fixed in 2.142.1: AsciiDoc inline-format regex is quadratic in paragraph length (CPU exhaustion) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑No telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere
adequateNone of 1,413 readable files references an instrumentation, metrics or error-reporting library. If this system is in production, nobody learns that it broke from the system itself — they learn it from a customer. That is a reliability finding before it is an observability one.
| telemetry-scan | searched 1,413 tracked text files for 16 known instrumentation libraries; manifests for metrics, tracing and error-reporting families; locked dependencies for the packages that emit; 0 matched |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
No 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 1,413 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
One request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.
| request ids | no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
8 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured The tree carries design documentation (.agents/skills/building-pydantic-ai-agents/references/ARCHITECTURE.md and 1 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 405 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured 1,013 commits landed in the last year, against 476 the year before (+113%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- measured No experiment tracking is configured in the repository. How was the shipped model trained and evaluated, and could it be reproduced?
- measured No model card is in the tree. What is the model's intended use, what was it trained on, and where does it fail?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Python codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in docling/, packages/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (.actor/Dockerfile and 1 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/docling-project/docling/bffc365)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 — 95 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 95 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 — 73
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 3,510 · top5 share 0.059 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 53 · per kloc 0.11 · lines read 488,316 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.689 · early test per code 0.131 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.243 · early delete per insert 0.325 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 855 · share 0.676 · with tests 578 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.006 · code files 313 · compat files 2 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.print_logging | raw prints are few, or outnumbered by logger callsprints 15 · logger calls 13 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 103 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 5 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 2.3 · window last 24 months · authors 405 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 405 · active 12mo 285 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 405 · directories 4 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 405 · one off share 0.654 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 405 · 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 401 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 8 · joined 64 · regular last year 72 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 119 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 15 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 249 · source 562 · test ratio 0.443 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 236 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 1,841 · low content share 0.0 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 15 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 6 · test files 1,309 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 15 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 1,489 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 3 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 5 · ci configs 15 · product files 313 |
| 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 8,767 · share of insertions 0.0007 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 17.42 · repeat share 0.0 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 397 · write once share 0.227 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.012 · product files 313 · distinct blocks 85,011 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 489,177 · files 24 · per kloc 0.08 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 1,413 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 11,726,990 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 78 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 0 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 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.dataset_provenance | data files carry a licence or carddata files 0 · licence or card files 3 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 22 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 143 · added in two years 82 · 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 1.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 557 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 0 · on branch 236 · tags in window 236 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 22
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.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.notebook_outputs | too few notebooks |
| 05.dependency_pinning | no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV PyPI docling-client (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 3 records name docling with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-78163, CVE-2026-95628, CVE-2026-95629) |
| 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 2XTE-63ZV-9V6E 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/2XTE63ZV9V6E?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: 466.9authenticated: False |
| 39.8s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 94.2s | read the git history | commits: 1841tracked files: 1930 |
| 410.4s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 410.5s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 603.5s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 603.5s | deleting the working copy |
Total 603.5s ·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).