Borehole · Risk register · free tier

dtyq/magic

Free reading: not for reliance

0f1432c · 10,326 commits · 26,408 files
Issued 2026-11-03

Nothing proven significant. 1 finding is worth checking first.

104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 15 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 24 October 2026.

Worth checking first

Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here may be significant, and 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.

04.3 271 direct dependencies in a single manifest

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

2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.

	Dimension	Rating
01	Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance	adequate
02	Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity	adequate
03	Organization & Key-Person Risk	strong
04	Product & Engineering Maturity	adequate
05	Security & Reliability Posture	adequate
06	Observability & Operations	strong
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 added lines arrived in commits declaring an AI agent as co-author

The surviving-lines measurement was not run on this repository.

0% of lines added in the last 12 months (since 2025-11-03) arrived in AI-declared commits: 16/7,997 commits, confidence moderate. Also a floor.

16/8,723 commits declaring an agent · Claude Opus 5 (1M context), Cursor

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

232,886 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 · adequate · ratings ↑

01.25

1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`

adequate

1 of 17 `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.

Evidence

backend/magic-service/go-engine/Dockerfile backend/magic-service/go-engine/Dockerfile:17 — 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.

A note that does not affect this rating

01.6

frontend/magic-web/src/pages/superMagic/components/Detail/contents/HTML/templates/dashboard/dashboard.js is 12,619 lines, 170× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 74 lines. 204 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 12,619. 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 87% 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	`frontend/magic-web/src/pages/superMagic/components/Detail/contents/HTML/templates/dashboard/dashboard.js:1` — 12,619 lines (170× median)
line-count	`backend/super-magic/static/http_client/js/client.js:1` — 12,420 lines (167× median)
line-count	`backend/magic-service/app/Domain/SuperMagic/File/Service/TaskFileDomainService.php:1` — 5,255 lines (71× median)
line-count	`backend/magic-service/app/Application/SuperMagic/Common/Share/Service/ResourceShareAppService.php:1` — 4,872 lines (65× median)
line-count	`backend/super-magic/app/magic/agent.py:1` — 4,414 lines (59× 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.

Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity

02 · adequate · ratings ↑

02.4

Nothing in the history is tagged as a release

adequate

Across 13.7 years of history there is not one tag. There may still be a deployment process, but this repository holds no record of what shipped when — which is the record a buyer needs to reconstruct an incident or a regression after the fact.

Evidence

tag-list

0 tags across 10,326 commits and 4988 days

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.

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · strong · ratings ↑

No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · adequate · ratings ↑

04.3

271 direct dependencies in a single manifest

adequate worth checking first

frontend/magic-web/package.json declares 271 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.

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 frontend/magic-web/package.json and the 3 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.

Evidence

direct-dependencies	`frontend/magic-web/package.json` — 271 declared
direct-dependencies	`backend/magic-service/go-engine/go.mod` — 34 declared
direct-dependencies	`frontend/eslint-config/package.json` — 34 declared
direct-dependencies	`frontend/magic-flow/package.json` — 29 declared

Respond to this finding

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

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · adequate · ratings ↑

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 26,408 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

6 Dockerfiles run 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	`backend/magic-gateway/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`backend/magic-service/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`backend/magic-service/go-engine/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`backend/sandbox-components/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.

05.49

The production build publishes source maps

adequate

The build configuration emits source maps for production, so the original source, with its comments and structure, is downloadable by every visitor. Upload them to an error tracker and keep them off the public server instead.

Evidence

frontend/magic-web/packages/html2image/vite.config.ts	`frontend/magic-web/packages/html2image/vite.config.ts:21` — source maps in a production build
frontend/magic-web/packages/html2pptx/vite.config.ts	`frontend/magic-web/packages/html2pptx/vite.config.ts:36` — source maps in a production build
frontend/magic-web/packages/pdf-export/vite.config.ts	`frontend/magic-web/packages/pdf-export/vite.config.ts:21` — source maps in a production 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.

05.10

Licence text does not match a standard licence

adequate

LICENSE exists but its text does not match any standard licence. A bespoke or hand-edited licence is not wrong, but it cannot be cleared by recognising its name: counsel has to read it, and until they do neither side knows precisely what rights transfer with the code.

Evidence

LICENSE LICENSE:1 — 35 lines, unrecognised

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

05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

7 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; 1 step pipes 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.

Evidence

.github/workflows/image-build.yml	`.github/workflows/image-build.yml:42` — action pinned by tag
.github/workflows/image-build.yml	`.github/workflows/image-build.yml:45` — action pinned by tag
backend/super-magic/Dockerfile	`backend/super-magic/Dockerfile:135` — 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.

05.13

4 outbound calls can wait forever

adequate

4 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

backend/sandbox-components/pkg/agent-deployer/client/webhook_client.go	`backend/sandbox-components/pkg/agent-deployer/client/webhook_client.go:29` — outbound call without a timeout
backend/super-magic/app/infrastructure/observability/requests_integration.py	`backend/super-magic/app/infrastructure/observability/requests_integration.py:180` — outbound call without a timeout
backend/super-magic/app/infrastructure/storage/base.py	`backend/super-magic/app/infrastructure/storage/base.py:374` — 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.

05.21

4 shell commands built from strings

adequate

4 places run a command through a shell (`shell=True`, `os.system`, `exec` with a template) rather than passing arguments. Where any part comes from outside, it is command injection. Ask where each one's input comes from.

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

Evidence

backend/super-magic/agentlang/agentlang/agent/processors/shell.py	`backend/super-magic/agentlang/agentlang/agent/processors/shell.py:77` — command run through a shell
backend/super-magic/deploy/setup_font.py	`backend/super-magic/deploy/setup_font.py:269` — command run through a shell
backend/super-magic/deploy/setup_font.py	`backend/super-magic/deploy/setup_font.py:276` — command run through 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.

05.22

15 deserialisers that can run code

adequate

15 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (PHP `unserialize`, `yaml.load` without a safe loader). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.

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

Evidence

backend/async-event/src/Kernel/Executor/AsyncListenerExecutor.php	`backend/async-event/src/Kernel/Executor/AsyncListenerExecutor.php:53` — code-executing deserialiser
backend/async-event/src/Kernel/Executor/AsyncListenerExecutor.php	`backend/async-event/src/Kernel/Executor/AsyncListenerExecutor.php:98` — code-executing deserialiser
backend/flow-expr-engine/src/Structure/Form/Form.php	`backend/flow-expr-engine/src/Structure/Form/Form.php:268` — code-executing deserialiser

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.

05.48

69 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it

adequate

69 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.

Evidence

backend/super-magic/static/http_client/js/client.js	`backend/super-magic/static/http_client/js/client.js:4638` — HTML from a variable
backend/super-magic/static/http_client/js/client.js	`backend/super-magic/static/http_client/js/client.js:8005` — HTML from a variable
backend/super-magic/static/http_client/js/client.js	`backend/super-magic/static/http_client/js/client.js:8143` — 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.

05.9

3 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

cli/deps/common_tool_linux.go	`cli/deps/common_tool_linux.go` — 1 tracked files, no licence file
cli/deps/common_tool_notlinux.go	`cli/deps/common_tool_notlinux.go` — 1 tracked files, no licence file
cli/deps/dep.go	`cli/deps/dep.go` — 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 · strong · ratings ↑

A note that does 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.

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

9 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 The tree carries design documentation (backend/magic-service/storage/html-design-style/styles/abugo-design-system-and-vizu-ln-identita/DESIGN.md and 172 more). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code. 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

measured 69 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing? Answer lives in: The deal terms03.29
measured The repository went quiet for 19 months, from August 2024 to March 2026, then 1,363 commits landed in the six weeks after. Where was the work of that period done, and is it in this history? The history shows the gap, not why it happened. Answer lives in: The team03.15
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 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 TypeScript codebase, with PHP alongside (33% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in frontend/, backend/, cli/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
The repository carries deployment configuration (backend/magic-gateway/Dockerfile and 10 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/dtyq/magic.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/dtyq/magic/0f1432c)

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 — 89 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 89 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 — 64

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 40,587 · top5 share 0.015
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 123 · per kloc 0.05 · lines read 2,416,805
04.test_growth	test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.261 · early test per code 0.022
04.churn_trend	rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.272 · early delete per insert 0.481
04.eol_runtime	every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24
04.fixes_with_tests	fixes usually come with a testfixes 2,679 · share 0.453 · with tests 1,214
04.compat_layers	little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.003 · code files 17,578 · compat files 48
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 37
06.structured_logging	a structured logging library is referencedmatches 29
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 360
06.usage_reporting_default	the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 1 · settings off 0
06.deployed_image_floats	every deployed image names a versionimages 4 · floating 0
06.environment_branching	environment differences live in configurationsites 7
06.release_markers	releases are markedtags last year 0 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 12
06.migrate_on_start	migrations do not run at container start
03.contributor_concentration	no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 13.7 · window last 24 months · authors 69
03.active_contributors	more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 69 · active 12mo 32
03.knowledge_silos	every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 69 · directories 6
03.drive_by_contributors	an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 69 · one off share 0.188
03.contributor_attrition	no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 69 · 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 32
03.second_contributor_attrition	the second and third contributors are still active
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 1,517 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0
02.ci_presence	CI configuration is present in the working treecount 17
02.test_presence	tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 3,996 · source 21,443 · test ratio 0.186
02.conventional_commits	commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 8,723 · low content share 0.011
02.branch_protection_hints	process scaffolding is present in the repository
02.ci_runs_tests	CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 17 · with tests 3
02.skipped_tests	few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 4,166
02.ci_test_gating	no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 17
02.revert_share	change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 25 · recent commits 7,997
02.dependency_update_cadence	dependencies move with the codelockfiles 12 · commits since 29 · 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 18 · ci configs 17 · product files 17,578
02.long_lived_branches	the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.016 · merges 492 · long lived 8
02.commit_size	changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.045 · commits 7,583 · over 2000 lines 344
01.burst_import	the largest burst was a patch series written together and landed commit by commit over 4 hours (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays itlargest commits 98776e1..5ffd956 · bursts explained 3 · largest net added 1,532,918
01.initial_dump	first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 1 · share of insertions 0.0
01.message_uniformity	commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 29.8 · repeat share 0.095
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 17,511 · write once share 0.573
01.duplicated_blocks	little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0234 · product files 15,930 · distinct blocks 1,616,095
01.swallowed_errors	errors are rarely thrown awayloc 2,432,747 · files 122 · per kloc 0.1
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 16,076
05.dependency_pinning	a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True
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 8,741,463
05.secrets_management_pattern	no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0
05.sql_from_strings	no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 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.public_env_secret	only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 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 344
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
05.licence_changes	the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 0 · unreleased changes 0
05.paid_edition	no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0
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	columns, once added, stay
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.probes_identical	no Kubernetes probes
06.single_replica	no Kubernetes deployments
06.feature_flags	no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere
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.migration_reversibility	too few migrations to judge
05.resource_limits	no Kubernetes workload manifests
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	the history scanned covers 5 months, less than the 12 this question needs
04.api_versions_coexisting	the history scanned covers 5 months, less than the 18 this question needs
04.deprecations_lingering	the history scanned covers 5 months, less than the 24 this question needs
04.dependency_churn	the history scanned covers 5 months, less than the 24 this question needs
04.ci_platforms_dropped	the history scanned covers 5 months, less than the 24 this question needs
04.releases_stopped	too few tagged releases to judge a cadence
04.release_branch	too few release tags to tell
05.project_advisories	record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm @dtyq/es6-template-strings (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dtyq/magic-flow (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dtyq/upload-sdk (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dtyq/user-selector (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 294 records name magic with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2002-1969, CVE-2003-0391, CVE-2004-2572, …)
05.advisory_record	record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; OSV npm @dtyq/es6-template-strings (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dtyq/magic-flow (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dtyq/upload-sdk (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @dtyq/user-selector (an empty record for a package published here) did not answer; NVD: 294 records name magic with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2002-1969, CVE-2003-0391, CVE-2004-2572, …)
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 BZ3Y-YSC1-TCCD 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/dtyq/magic/0f1432c.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/BZ3YYSC1TCCD?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: 177.8authenticated: False
25.5s	cloned the repository to a temporary directory	depth: full
49.6s	read the git history	commits: 10326tracked files: 26408
710.6s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Falseread working tree: False
710.7s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
1196.6s	kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
1196.6s	deleting the working copy

Total 1196.6s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended

An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).

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