Borehole · Risk register · free tier

documize/community

Free reading: not for reliance

e19bcd0 · 1,854 commits · 2,398 files
Issued 2026-11-03

Reads strong: 3 of 5 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.

100 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Observability & Operations are adequate. 2 findings are worth checking first. 15 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.

This repository reads strong. Show it in your README: the badge links to a page where anyone can check the reading. If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.

[![Borehole reading, not a certification](https://borehole.dev/badge/documize/community/e19bcd0.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/KPQZJ71XM1ZB?via=badge)

Worth checking first

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.

05.20 9 SQL statements built from strings
05.26 52 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 11 high or critical in what ships

Published under today's rules. The verification code attests to this reading as it was stored. This page differs from it as follows.

Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
4 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
2 findings about one contributor are withheld: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits; a buyer of this report reads them.
The file and line of 1 credential-shaped match is withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.

	Dimension	Rating
01	Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance	strong
02	Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity	strong
03	Organization & Key-Person Risk	not assessable
04	Product & Engineering Maturity	strong
05	Security & Reliability Posture	adequate
06	Observability & Operations	adequate
07	Fit with the Acquirer	not assessable

strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository

Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating

0% of the code standing today was written in AI-declared commits

0% of lines still in the tree 0 of 253,873 0% of lines ever added these differ when early hand-written code has since been replaced

0/1,707 commits declaring an agent

confidence: moderate

1% 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
deep scan blamed 1,712 of 1,712 counted files

1,058,970 lines excluded as lockfiles, vendored or generated.

This is a lower bound. It counts what the repository declares. Undeclared AI authorship is invisible here, and a single rebase removes the trailers this rests on. Absence of a declaration is absence of disclosure, not absence of AI authorship.

Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance

01 · strong · ratings ↑

A note that does not affect this rating

01.6

gui/public/pdfjs/web/viewer.js is 15,117 lines, 207× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 73 lines. 8 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 15,117. 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. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 91% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.

A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.

Evidence

line-count	`gui/public/pdfjs/web/viewer.js:1` — 15,117 lines (207× median)
line-count	`gui/public/codemirror/lib/codemirror.js:1` — 9,731 lines (133× median)
line-count	`gui/public/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/js/emojis.js:1` — 9,015 lines (123× median)
line-count	`domain/backup/restore.go:1` — 1,947 lines (26× median)
line-count	`domain/page/endpoint.go:1` — 1,556 lines (21× 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 · not assessable · ratings ↑

Not rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them. What a person adds here.

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · strong · ratings ↑

Notes that do not affect this rating

04.17

2 pinned runtimes are past end of life

adequate

The code is pinned to Go 1.21 (end of life 2024-08-13); Node.js 16 (end of life 2023-09-11). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2023-09-11. 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.

Evidence

Dockerfile	`Dockerfile` — Go 1.21, end of life 2024-08-13
Dockerfile	`Dockerfile` — Node.js 16, end of life 2023-09-11

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.

04.38

17 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago

adequate

17 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Feb 2018. 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.

Evidence

vendor/github.com/codegangsta/negroni/recovery.go	`vendor/github.com/codegangsta/negroni/recovery.go` — deprecated since Feb 2018
core/mail/smtp.go	`core/mail/smtp.go` — deprecated since Mar 2018
vendor/github.com/andygrunwald/go-jira/authentication.go	`vendor/github.com/andygrunwald/go-jira/authentication.go` — deprecated since Aug 2018
vendor/github.com/go-sql-driver/mysql/driver.go	`vendor/github.com/go-sql-driver/mysql/driver.go` — deprecated since Jun 2019
vendor/golang.org/x/crypto/blowfish/cipher.go	`vendor/golang.org/x/crypto/blowfish/cipher.go` — deprecated since Sep 2019

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.

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · adequate · ratings ↑

05.1

1 credential-shaped string committed to the tree

adequate

Matches for private key block appear in tracked files outside test and fixture paths. They stay in the history even after they leave the tree, so what matters is whether each was rotated. The code cannot tell whether any of them is live, and that decides whether this matters: none sits in production configuration, and none is in a format its provider keeps for live keys. Is any of these live? Show that each was rotated after it was committed, and when. 2 other matchs set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.

Evidence

private key block	private key block pattern matched
	File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

05.2

None of the standard security guard rails are configured

adequate

There is no disclosure policy, no automated dependency updates, no named code owners and no pre-commit configuration. None of these is load-bearing on its own. Their collective absence says that security posture here is whatever the current team happens to remember to do, which is not a posture that survives the team changing.

Evidence

guardrail-scan

checked 5 kinds of guard rail across 2,398 tracked files; 0 present

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.

05.6

1 Dockerfile runs the application as root

adequate

No 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.

Evidence

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.

05.20

9 SQL statements built from strings

adequate worth checking first

9 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters, and in 6 of them a value, not a table or column name, goes into the string. Where any of those values comes from a request, it is an injection point. Each site needs a look; the fix, parameters, is small.

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 domain/account/store.go:103 and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.

Evidence

domain/account/store.go	`domain/account/store.go:103` — SQL built from a string
domain/organization/store.go	`domain/organization/store.go:137` — SQL built from a string
domain/organization/store.go	`domain/organization/store.go:165` — 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.

05.26

52 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 11 high or critical in what ships

adequate worth checking first

52 of 843 locked dependencies match 122 published advisories in OSV, 82 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 and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.

Evidence

go.mod	`go.mod` — golang.org/x/crypto v0.19.0: GHSA-5cgq-3rg8-m6cv (critical), fixed in 0.52.0
gui/package-lock.json	`gui/package-lock.json` — @babel/traverse 7.15.0: GHSA-67hx-6x53-jw92 (critical), fixed in 7.23.2; reached only by the build
gui/package-lock.json	`gui/package-lock.json` — babel-traverse 6.26.0: GHSA-67hx-6x53-jw92 (critical); reached only by the build

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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

05.13

13 outbound calls can wait forever

adequate

13 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.

Evidence

domain/auth/cas/endpoint.go	`domain/auth/cas/endpoint.go:74` — outbound call without a timeout
domain/auth/keycloak/keycloak.go	`domain/auth/keycloak/keycloak.go:47` — outbound call without a timeout
domain/auth/keycloak/keycloak.go	`domain/auth/keycloak/keycloak.go:85` — 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.

05.9

14 vendored components with no licence

adequate

Third-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

gui/app/styles/core/vendor/all.scss	`gui/app/styles/core/vendor/all.scss` — 1 tracked files, no licence file
gui/app/styles/core/vendor/datepicker.scss	`gui/app/styles/core/vendor/datepicker.scss` — 1 tracked files, no licence file
gui/app/styles/core/vendor/dragula.scss	`gui/app/styles/core/vendor/dragula.scss` — 1 tracked files, no licence file
gui/app/styles/core/vendor/dropzone.scss	`gui/app/styles/core/vendor/dropzone.scss` — 1 tracked files, no licence file
gui/app/styles/core/vendor/izitoast.scss	`gui/app/styles/core/vendor/izitoast.scss` — 1 tracked files, no licence file
gui/app/styles/core/vendor/prismjs.scss	`gui/app/styles/core/vendor/prismjs.scss` — 1 tracked files, no licence file

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

Observability & Operations

06 · adequate · ratings ↑

06.1

No telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere

adequate

None of 1,217 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.

Evidence

telemetry-scan

searched 1,217 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.

06.2

No structured logging library is in use

adequate

Nothing 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.

Evidence

logging-scan

searched 1,217 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.

06.7

The service logs with print: 72 calls against 1 logger calls

adequate

72 `print` or `console.log` calls in the service's code, and 1 calls through a logger. Printed lines carry no level and no context, cannot be switched off, and are hard to find again in production.

Evidence

core/api/convert/apidocumizecom/msword.go	`core/api/convert/apidocumizecom/msword.go:36` — print used for logging
core/api/convert/apidocumizecom/msword.go	`core/api/convert/apidocumizecom/msword.go:51` — print used for logging
core/api/convert/apidocumizecom/msword.go	`core/api/convert/apidocumizecom/msword.go:55` — print used for logging

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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

06.9

No error reporter is wired in

adequate

Nothing 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.

Evidence

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.

06.18

1 of 2 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`

adequate

1 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.

Evidence

docker-compose.yaml docker-compose.yaml:31 — 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.

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

13 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. See the tiers.

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 2,258 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it? Answer lives in: The team01.38
Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product? Answer lives in: Your architects, with the product roadmap01.39
Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now? Answer lives in: The team's reasoning at the time01.40

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. Answer lives in: The code host's pull request data02.32
Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic? Answer lives in: The issue tracker: backlog, sprint history, estimate accuracy02.38
How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from? Answer lives in: Tickets, chat and postmortems02.37

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · partial coverage

Which of the people who wrote this are part of the transaction, and for how long after it? Answer lives in: The deal terms03.29
Is that code finished, or abandoned, and who still knows how it works? Answer lives in: The team03.22
Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure? Answer lives in: The team; review history only suggests candidates03.28
Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors? Answer lives in: Recruiting data and the org chart03.30
Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands? Answer lives in: HR data03.31
Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time. Answer lives in: Interviews and on-call history03.14
Does the team want to stay after close? Answer lives in: Interviews03.32
How are decisions made and disagreements resolved? Answer lives in: Time with the team03.33

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · minimal coverage

Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline? Answer lives in: The data room and the team's record of estimates04.32
Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it? Answer lives in: Budget and roadmap decisions04.31
Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story? Answer lives in: Revenue, customer and churn data04.33

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · partial coverage

measured 05.1 and 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was. Answer lives in: The provider's console and audit log05.38
measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it? Answer lives in: The security owner05.43
What has actually broken, how often, and how badly? Answer lives in: Ticketing and chat05.41
What did external testing find, and was it fixed? Answer lives in: Reports in the data room05.42
What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence? Answer lives in: Audit reports; policy files in the tree are not evidence05.44

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? Answer lives in: The operations team06.19
measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire? Answer lives in: The alerting tool and the on-call rota06.10
Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered? Answer lives in: Pager history and dashboard logs06.29
Are the service-level objectives actually met? Answer lives in: Production metrics06.30
Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off? Answer lives in: Pager exports and interviews06.31
What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there? Answer lives in: Cloud billing and capacity plans06.32

Fit with the Acquirer

07 · none coverage

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.

This is primarily a JavaScript codebase, with Go alongside (27% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run JavaScript in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in gui/, vendor/, core/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 1 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first? 07.2
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? Answer lives in: Your architecture07.11
What will integration cost, and in what order? Answer lives in: The engagement07.12
Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom? Answer lives in: Your org design07.13
Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign? Answer lives in: Deal terms07.14
Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors? Answer lives in: Customer contracts07.15

Request a human assessment Download JSON Badge PDF Post on X

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.

[![Borehole](/badge/documize/community.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/documize/community/e19bcd0)

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 — 85 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 85 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 — 52

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 7,297 · top5 share 0.046
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 51 · per kloc 0.25 · lines read 200,527
04.dependency_sprawl	direct dependency counts are unremarkable
04.churn_trend	rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.985 · early delete per insert 0.81
04.compat_layers	little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 1,211 · compat files 1
06.correlation_ids	a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 4
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.migrate_on_start	migrations do not run at container start
03.knowledge_silos	withheld: this check's result would describe one person
03.drive_by_contributors	withheld: this check's result would describe one person
03.contributor_attrition	withheld: this check's result would describe one person
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 147 · window all history · with tracked 80
02.ci_presence	CI configuration is present in the working treecount 11
02.test_presence	tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 79 · source 777 · test ratio 0.102
02.release_cadence	tags are presenttags 165
02.conventional_commits	commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 1,707 · low content share 0.041
02.branch_protection_hints	process scaffolding is present in the repository
02.ci_runs_tests	CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 11 · with tests 1
02.skipped_tests	few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 73
02.ci_test_gating	no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 11
02.dependency_update_cadence	dependencies move with the codelockfiles 3 · commits since 1 · days since lockfile changed 240
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 1 · ci configs 11 · product files 1,211
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 810,642 · share of insertions 0.3291
01.message_uniformity	commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 13.88 · repeat share 0.129
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,448 · write once share 0.312
01.duplicated_blocks	little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0187 · product files 705 · distinct blocks 90,503
01.swallowed_errors	errors are rarely thrown awayloc 201,640 · files 16 · per kloc 0.27
01.build_reproducibility	every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 3
01.unfinished_migration	no language migration is stalled halfway
01.weights_in_git	no model weights are committedfiles 0
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.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 614
05.license_grant_unclear	the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0
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 110 · added in two years 0 · removed within 60 days 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
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 72.5 · days since last tag 409 · commits last 90 days 0
04.release_branch	the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 0 · on branch 165 · tags in window 165
03.single_maintainer	withheld: this check's result would describe one person

Could not conclude, or did not apply — 33

Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.

Signal	Why
04.fixes_with_tests	too few fixes in 24 months to judge
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.telemetry_depth	none at all is 06.1
06.alert_rules	no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console
06.probes_identical	no Kubernetes probes
06.single_replica	no Kubernetes deployments
06.release_markers	fewer than 100 commits in the last year
06.feature_flags	no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere
03.critical_path_ownership	withheld: this check's result would describe one person
03.second_contributor_attrition	withheld: this check's result would describe one person
03.bus_factor_trend	withheld: this check's result would describe one person
03.joiners_and_leavers	withheld: this check's result would describe one person
02.revert_share	too few recent commits to judge how often change is undone
02.long_lived_branches	too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none)
02.commit_size	too few recent commits
01.notebook_outputs	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.supply_chain_pinning	no CI actions or pipe-to-shell installs to check
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.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
04.ci_platforms_dropped	no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years
05.project_advisories	record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD did not
05.advisory_record	record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; NVD 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 KPQZ-J71X-M1ZB 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.

[![Borehole reading, not a certification](https://borehole.dev/badge/documize/community/e19bcd0.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/KPQZJ71XM1ZB?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: 200.6authenticated: False
33.4s	cloned the repository to a temporary directory	depth: full
59.6s	read the git history	commits: 1854tracked files: 2398
351.8s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Trueread working tree: False
351.8s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
461.2s	kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
461.2s	deleting the working copy

Total 461.2s ·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).

BOREHOLE 0.7.15 DETERMINISTIC LAYER · NO MODEL CALLSREAD ON BOREHOLE'S SERVER · CLONE DELETED TAKEDOWNCONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPOSITORY? YOUR RIGHTS