7583cc6 · 25,250 commits · 1,504 files
Issued 2026-10-03
Reads strong: 5 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 1 is adequate and none is significant.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture is adequate. 8 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md:4
- names CNCF GOVERNANCE.md:9
- names OpenSSF README.md:11
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 41% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- 23% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers
- commit 4132c3559 says the project removes AI co-author trailers, so the declared share is a floor of unknown distance
- deep scan blamed 1,475 of 1,475 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑api/etcdserverpb/gw/rpc.pb.gw.go is 3,260 lines, 30× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 107 lines. 9 files exceed 1,070 lines, the largest being 3,260. 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 | api/etcdserverpb/gw/rpc.pb.gw.go:1 — 3,260 lines (30× median) |
| line-count | server/etcdserver/server.go:1 — 2,472 lines (23× median) |
| line-count | server/embed/config.go:1 — 1,380 lines (12× median) |
| line-count | server/etcdserver/v3_server.go:1 — 1,292 lines (12× median) |
| line-count | server/auth/store.go:1 — 1,238 lines (11× 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 · 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 ↑Effort is shifting from building to rewriting
adequateDeleted lines per line added rose from 0.42 to 0.97 between the first and second halves of this history. Rework is normal and often healthy, but a rising ratio means an increasing share of the team's time is spent replacing code that already exists rather than building what does not. Whether that is deliberate repayment or churn is a question for the team.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| deletions-per-insertion | first half 0.42, second half 0.97 (split 2020-01-30) |
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.
13 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate13 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Mar 2021. 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.
| client/v3/logger.go | client/v3/logger.go — deprecated since Mar 2021 |
| client/v3/client.go | client/v3/client.go — deprecated since May 2021 |
| client/v3/maintenance.go | client/v3/maintenance.go — deprecated since Jun 2021 |
| client/pkg/transport/limit_listen.go | client/pkg/transport/limit_listen.go — deprecated since Aug 2022 |
| pkg/expect/expect.go | pkg/expect/expect.go — deprecated since Aug 2022 |
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.
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v3.7.2, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v2.3.0. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| 68c065e56 | tag v3.7.2 |
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.
2 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate2 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| contrib/lock/client/client.go | contrib/lock/client/client.go:63 — outbound call without a timeout |
| etcdctl/ctlv3/command/util.go | etcdctl/ctlv3/command/util.go:116 — outbound call without a timeout |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
6 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-07-23. 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 3 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 2.3.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-6vch-q96h-7gc3 (high), GHSA-xg4h-6gfc-h4m8 (high), GHSA-3wh4-j44w-pg92 (moderate) affect 2.3.0, the newest release in this history, and not the surveyed commit: their fixes are in the surveyed commit, and whether a release cut elsewhere carries them could not be told. Answer lives in: the version you run. The record is incomplete: NVD: 13 records name etcd with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2023-46307, CVE-2024-4436, CVE-2024-4437, …).
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-6vch-q96h-7gc3 | 2026-07-23: GHSA-6vch-q96h-7gc3 (high), fixed in 3.5.33: etcd: `tlsListener.acceptLoop` spawns unbounded handshake goroutines with no deadline |
| GHSA-xg4h-6gfc-h4m8 | 2026-07-23: GHSA-xg4h-6gfc-h4m8 (high), fixed in 3.5.33: etcd: Watch API authorization bypass via open-ended range requests |
| GHSA-3wh4-j44w-pg92 | 2026-07-01: GHSA-3wh4-j44w-pg92 (moderate), fixed in 3.5.32: etcd: CRL enforcement bypass on gRPC listener when `--listen-client-http-urls` is configured |
| GHSA-x35m-3gp4-4fh5 | 2026-05-01: GHSA-x35m-3gp4-4fh5 (low), fixed in 3.4.44: etcd RBAC bypass allows unauthorized data access via PrevKv/lease attachment in nested transaction Put requests |
| GHSA-q8m4-xhhv-38mg | 2026-03-20: GHSA-q8m4-xhhv-38mg (high), fixed in 3.4.42: etcd: Authorization bypasses in multiple APIs |
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 · strong · ratings ↑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
4 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 (Documentation/etcd-internals/diagrams/consistent_read_workflow.drawio and 3 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 1,134 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 A roadmap file is in the tree (Documentation/contributor-guide/roadmap.md, last changed July 2026). A file is not a plan. Does it match the roadmap in the data room, and has the team delivered the last one it wrote?
- 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 A threat model is in the tree (THREAT_MODEL.md). Does it name the assets this code actually handles, and is it current against the deployment?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured Alert rules are defined in the repository. Who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- measured 1 postmortem or incident write-up in the tree (Documentation/postmortems/v3.5-data-inconsistency.md). Walk through the most recent one: what broke, how it was found, and what changed afterwards.
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Go codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in server/, client/, api/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (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/etcd-io/etcd/7583cc6)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 — 97 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 97 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 — 76
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 15,479 · top5 share 0.043 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 478 · per kloc 1.91 · lines read 250,524 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.756 · early test per code 0.367 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 263 · share 0.608 · with tests 160 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.004 · code files 542 · compat files 2 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 32 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 296 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.print_logging | raw prints are few, or outnumbered by logger callsprints 168 · logger calls 364 |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 4 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.alert_rules | alert rules are defined as codealert files 1 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 282 · release commits 3 · changelog commits 19 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 13.3 · window last 24 months · authors 1,134 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 1,134 · active 12mo 94 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 1,134 · directories 13 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 1,134 · one off share 0.585 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 1,134 · 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 165 |
| 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 18 · joined 20 · regular last year 33 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 1,445 · window last 24 months · with tracked 17 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 12 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 525 · source 1,052 · test ratio 0.499 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 964 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 15,863 · low content share 0.008 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 12 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 612 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 12 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 3 · recent commits 1,817 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 14 · commits since 0 · 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 1 · ci configs 12 · product files 542 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.046 · merges 1,442 · long lived 67 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.002 · commits 1,299 · over 2000 lines 2 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was a branch merged by a merge commit, developed on its own branch and landed in one piece (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 4bb0481..a35d588 · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 5,882 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 205 · share of insertions 0.0001 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.77 · repeat share 0.027 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 596 · write once share 0.22 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0014 · product files 527 · distinct blocks 53,183 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 251,842 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 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 1,321 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 20 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 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 2 |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no locked dependency has a published advisoryadvisories 0 · dependencies 78 · high or critical 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_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 400 · added in two years 86 · removed within 60 days 3 |
| 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 0.0 · days since last tag 2 · commits last 90 days 279 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 21
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 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 |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 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.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 13 records name etcd with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2023-46307, CVE-2024-4436, CVE-2024-4437, …); 5 affect 2.3.0, the newest release in this history, and not the surveyed commit, which has the fix |
| 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 X577-H8V9-KVKC 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/X577H8V9KVKC?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-03 · shown | borehole 0.7.11 | 9 | strong |
7 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 9 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 9 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 9 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 9 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 9 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 9 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.5 | 9 | adequate |
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 | authenticated: False |
| 9.4s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 19.6s | read the git history | commits: 25250tracked files: 1504 |
| 290.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 290.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 342.8s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 342.8s | deleting the working copy |
Total 342.8s ·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).