bbcf1d8 · 30,762 commits · 18,059 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 23 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
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.
- 04.3 165 direct dependencies in a single manifest
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 3 credential-shaped matches are 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 | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 12% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑packages/core/src/lib/database/migrations/1725879899378-AlterBaseEntityAddArchivedAtField.ts is 8,246 lines, 164× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 50 lines. 94 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 8,246. 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.
| line-count | packages/core/src/lib/database/migrations/1725879899378-AlterBaseEntityAddArchivedAtField.ts:1 — 8,246 lines (164× median) |
| line-count | packages/core/src/lib/database/migrations/1696413384868-AddedActiveArchivedColumnsToBaseEntity.ts:1 — 5,368 lines (107× median) |
| line-count | packages/core/src/lib/database/migrations/1705138670108-MysqlTablesMigration.ts:1 — 4,834 lines (96× median) |
| line-count | packages/core/src/lib/database/migrations/1698659313745-AddSoftDeleteFeatureToTheAllTables.ts:1 — 4,756 lines (95× median) |
| line-count | packages/plugins/integration-ai/src/lib/sdk/gauzy-ai-sdk.ts:1 — 4,128 lines (82× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · adequate · ratings ↑5% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate207 of 4076 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| git log --numstat | 207 commits over 2,000 lines |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (apps/gauzy-e2e/playwright.config.ts). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| apps/gauzy-e2e/playwright.config.ts | apps/gauzy-e2e/playwright.config.ts:78 — test retry |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 4,536 non-merge commits among 39 authors; across all history, a quarter or more of 21,934. In a project with 39 recent contributors and 7 years of history, that is a question about one person's role rather than a fragile team — but it is the question to ask.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 4,536 commits; bus factor 1; 39 authors |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The contributor who wrote a quarter or more of this has not committed here for more than six months
adequateOne person authored a quarter or more of 21,934 commits and has not committed here for more than six months, while the repository has kept moving. The concentration figure alone would not show this. Whoever is changing this code now is not the person who wrote most of it, which is the situation an acquirer is usually told they are avoiding. The history shows only that no commits of theirs landed here, not why.
| last-commit-by-top-author | last commit more than six months ago, measured to the survey |
| git shortlog -sn | top author a quarter or more of 21,934 commits |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑165 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequate worth checking firstpackages/core/package.json declares 165 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 packages/core/package.json and the 3 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| direct-dependencies | packages/core/package.json — 165 declared |
| direct-dependencies | apps/gauzy/package.json — 143 declared |
| direct-dependencies | apps/desktop/src/package.json — 120 declared |
| direct-dependencies | apps/server/src/package.json — 118 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.
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 jobs are each done by more than one library
adequateWithin a single package: HTTP clients: axios, node-fetch, request; dates: date-fns, dayjs, moment. Each duplicate is bundle size, two ways of doing the same thing in one codebase, and two upgrade paths to maintain. It is usually the residue of a migration that stopped halfway.
| apps/agent/package.json | apps/agent/package.json — several libraries per job |
| apps/agent/src/package.json | apps/agent/src/package.json — several libraries per job |
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.
61 feature flags have been live for over a year
adequate63 feature flags appear in the history. 1 were removed; 61 are still in the code more than a year after they were added, the oldest since Sep 2024. A flag that stays is a permanent branch, and each one doubles what has to be tested. Ask which are still switched, and who owns retiring them.
| packages/config/src/environments/environment.ts | packages/config/src/environments/environment.ts — flag FEATURE_DASHBOARD since Sep 2024 |
| packages/config/src/environments/environment.ts | packages/config/src/environments/environment.ts — flag FEATURE_TIME_TRACKING since Sep 2024 |
| packages/config/src/environments/environment.ts | packages/config/src/environments/environment.ts — flag FEATURE_ESTIMATE since Sep 2024 |
| packages/config/src/environments/environment.ts | packages/config/src/environments/environment.ts — flag FEATURE_ESTIMATE_RECEIVED since Sep 2024 |
| packages/config/src/environments/environment.ts | packages/config/src/environments/environment.ts — flag FEATURE_INVOICE since Sep 2024 |
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 ↑3 credential-shaped strings committed to the tree
adequateMatches for Google API key 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. Only Google API keys matched. Those are often public by design, in a browser app's Firebase or Maps configuration; the question is whether each is restricted to the app's domains and APIs.
| Google API key | 3 cited: Google API key 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.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
3 environment files are committed
adequate.env.compose, .env.demo.compose, .env.docker are tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .env.compose | .env.compose — committed environment file |
| .env.demo.compose | .env.demo.compose — committed environment file |
| .env.docker | .env.docker — committed environment 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.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate18 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. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/agent-demo.yml | .github/workflows/agent-demo.yml:139 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/deploy-do-app-platform-demo.yml | .github/workflows/deploy-do-app-platform-demo.yml:37 — action pinned by tag |
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.
18 SQL statements built from strings
adequate18 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 3 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| packages/plugins/ever-connect/src/lib/ever-connect-catalog.service.ts | packages/plugins/ever-connect/src/lib/ever-connect-catalog.service.ts:59 — SQL built from a string |
| packages/plugins/ever-connect/src/lib/ever-connect-catalog.service.ts | packages/plugins/ever-connect/src/lib/ever-connect-catalog.service.ts:68 — SQL built from a string |
| packages/plugins/ever-connect/src/lib/ever-connect-catalog.service.ts | packages/plugins/ever-connect/src/lib/ever-connect-catalog.service.ts:73 — SQL built from a string |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
2 shell commands built from strings
adequate2 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.
| .scripts/postinstall.js | .scripts/postinstall.js:223 — command run through a shell |
| decorate-angular-cli.js | decorate-angular-cli.js:60 — 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.
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.
10 of 15 Kubernetes workloads declare no resource limits
adequate10 workload manifests set no CPU or memory limits. One pod that leaks memory or spins can starve everything else on its node, and the scheduler cannot plan capacity for what it cannot see.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.demo.yaml | .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.demo.yaml — workload with no limits |
| .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.prod.yaml | .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.prod.yaml — workload with no limits |
| .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.stage.yaml | .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.stage.yaml — workload with no limits |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
48 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 58 high or critical
adequate48 of 5,388 locked dependencies match 104 published advisories in OSV, 58 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. None of the high or critical ones is in what the product ships: 1 apply only under a condition the advisory states, which a lockfile cannot settle. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| yarn.lock | yarn.lock — minimist 0.0.10: GHSA-xvch-5gv4-984h (critical), fixed in 0.2.4 |
| yarn.lock | yarn.lock — tar 6.2.1: GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw (critical), fixed in 7.5.19 |
| yarn.lock | yarn.lock — underscore 1.4.4: GHSA-cf4h-3jhx-xvhq (critical), fixed in 1.12.1 |
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.
5 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate5 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.
| packages/plugins/dashboard-time-track-react-ui/src/lib/components/NbIcon.tsx | packages/plugins/dashboard-time-track-react-ui/src/lib/components/NbIcon.tsx:41 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/ui-core/shared/src/lib/directives/read-more.directive.ts | packages/ui-core/shared/src/lib/directives/read-more.directive.ts:72 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/ui-core/shared/src/lib/directives/read-more.directive.ts | packages/ui-core/shared/src/lib/directives/read-more.directive.ts:80 — HTML from a variable |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 vendored component with no licence
adequateThird-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.
| vendor/nebular | vendor/nebular — 4 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.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → proprietary (2020-10-04) → AGPL-3.0 AND proprietary (2024-04-25) → AGPL-3.0 (2024-04-25)
adequateThe root licence changed 3 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".
| 3c165b66e | LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 from 2019-06-02 |
| 6c9c4096b | LICENSE — proprietary from 2020-10-04 |
| c6543f4f0 | LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 AND proprietary from 2024-04-25 |
| 4ef2baf56 | LICENSE.md — AGPL-3.0 from 2024-04-25 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
35 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 27 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-26. 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 1 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 111.131.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
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-28wv-vrxj-rp4q | 2026-09-26: GHSA-28wv-vrxj-rp4q (high), fixed in 111.44.6: Public Invoice Link Accepts Unbound JWTs and Default Signing Keys |
| GHSA-48h9-vwf5-h8m7 | 2026-09-26: GHSA-48h9-vwf5-h8m7 (high), fixed in 111.44.5: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') and Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere in @gauzy/core |
| GHSA-57hw-jqpj-ww97 | 2026-09-26: GHSA-57hw-jqpj-ww97 (moderate), fixed in 111.44.4: Cross-Tenant Global Invoice Number Sequence Leak via Unscoped Highest Query |
| GHSA-jh6m-9fxr-rx3c | 2026-09-26: GHSA-jh6m-9fxr-rx3c (critical), fixed in 111.44.7: Cross-Tenant Entity Takeover via Primary Key Upsert in TenantAware Update Handlers |
| GHSA-7xp5-j564-4752 | 2026-09-26: GHSA-7xp5-j564-4752 (moderate), fixed in 111.44.2: CSV formula injection in data export (exported cells are not neutralized) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| logging-scan | searched 14,962 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
29 of 29 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate29 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.
| .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.demo.yaml | .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.demo.yaml:51 — image without a version |
| .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.demo.yaml | .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.demo.yaml:132 — image without a version |
| .deploy/ssh/with-letsencrypt/prod/docker-compose.api.prod.template.yml | .deploy/ssh/with-letsencrypt/prod/docker-compose.api.prod.template.yml:5 — 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.
13 of 15 deployments run a single replica
adequate13 deployments set `replicas: 1`, and nothing (an autoscaler, a disruption budget) adds more. Every deploy and every node drain is downtime, and the availability the buyer inherits has a ceiling.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.demo.yaml | .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.demo.yaml — replicas: 1 |
| .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.prod.yaml | .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.prod.yaml — replicas: 1 |
| .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.stage.yaml | .deploy/k8s/k8s-manifest.civo.stage.yaml — replicas: 1 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The code branches on the environment's name at 68 places
adequate68 places outside configuration test whether they are running in production or staging. Staging then does not exercise production's code, and each deploy is the first run of those branches. Differences belong in configuration the code reads, not in the code.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .scripts/bump-version-electron.js | .scripts/bump-version-electron.js:128 — branch on the environment name |
| .scripts/bump-version-electron.js | .scripts/bump-version-electron.js:168 — branch on the environment name |
| .scripts/bump-version-electron.js | .scripts/bump-version-electron.js:197 — branch on the environment name |
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
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.
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 15,346 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- 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 117 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 3,376 commits landed in the last year, against 1,147 the year before (+194%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 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.
- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in packages/, apps/, patches/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 47% of lines added in the last 12 months (5% of added lines) came through AI-declared commits. Does your organisation have a policy on inheriting and maintaining that code, and does your engineering team's tooling match how it was produced?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (.deploy/api/Dockerfile and 39 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/ever-co/ever-gauzy/bbcf1d8)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 — 80 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 80 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 73
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 39,100 · top5 share 0.028 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 101 · per kloc 0.05 · lines read 1,910,482 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.372 · early test per code 0.064 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.291 · early delete per insert 0.477 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 2,509 · share 0.45 · with tests 1,130 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 2 · columns added last year 237 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 11,048 · compat files 9 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 155 |
| 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 58 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 7 · config files 0 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.probes_identical | readiness and liveness are distinct, or not both setidentical 0 · workloads with both 2 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 1,582 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 9 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 06.feature_flags | a feature-flag service is configured and usedsdk files 4 · evaluation sites 8 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 117 · active 12mo 36 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 117 · one off share 0.171 |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 39 |
| 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 2 · joined 15 · regular last year 24 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 1,795 · window last 24 months · with tracked 37 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 76 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,112 · source 13,142 · test ratio 0.161 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 5,011 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 22,133 · low content share 0.006 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 76 · with tests 25 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 8 · test files 2,129 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 76 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 14 · recent commits 4,536 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 1 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 5 · ci configs 76 · product files 11,048 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.007 · merges 883 · long lived 6 |
| 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 3f5605f..2daecff · bursts explained 17 · largest net added 14,607 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 663 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.28 · repeat share 0.226 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 12,704 · write once share 0.416 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0168 · product files 11,026 · distinct blocks 623,948 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,924,904 · files 20 · per kloc 0.01 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 22 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | every shipped Dockerfile drops to a non-root user or builds on a non-root base imagedockerfiles 5 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 490 · irreversible 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 4 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on AGPL-3.0license AGPL-3.0 |
| 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.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 18 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 329 · added in two years 114 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 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.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 0 · commits last 90 days 3,718 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 566 · on branch 4,432 · tags in window 4,998 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 7
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 1 published advisory affects the surveyed code: its version could not be placed |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 8033-087C-QPCK 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/8033087CQPCK?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: 294.4authenticated: False |
| 44.7s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 111.9s | read the git history | commits: 30762tracked files: 18059 |
| 899.3s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 899.4s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 1545.6s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 1545.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 1545.6s ·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).