e304a84 · 4,851 commits · 3,178 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 17 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions SECURITY.md:17
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 05.26 41 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 8 high or critical in what ships
- 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 | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 67% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`
adequate1 of 12 `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.
| sdk/python/feast/infra/feature_servers/multicloud/Dockerfile | sdk/python/feast/infra/feature_servers/multicloud/Dockerfile:1 — 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.
sdk/python/feast/feature_store.py is 5,213 lines, 51× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 102 lines. 38 files exceed 1,020 lines, the largest being 5,213. 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 | sdk/python/feast/feature_store.py:1 — 5,213 lines (51× median) |
| line-count | sdk/python/feast/infra/offline_stores/contrib/ray_offline_store/ray.py:1 — 2,634 lines (25× median) |
| line-count | sdk/python/feast/type_map.py:1 — 2,467 lines (24× median) |
| line-count | sdk/python/feast/utils.py:1 — 2,132 lines (20× median) |
| line-count | infra/feast-operator/internal/controller/services/services.go:1 — 2,105 lines (20× 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 ↑8% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate90 of 1159 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| git log --numstat | 90 commits over 2,000 lines |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑2 pinned runtimes are past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 17 (end of life 2022-06-01); Python 3.9 (end of life 2025-10-31). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2022-06-01. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| ui/docker/Dockerfile | ui/docker/Dockerfile — Node.js 17, end of life 2022-06-01 |
| sdk/python/feast/infra/compute_engines/aws_lambda/Dockerfile | sdk/python/feast/infra/compute_engines/aws_lambda/Dockerfile — Python 3.9, end of life 2025-10-31 |
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.
8 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate8 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Jul 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.
| sdk/python/feast/feature_view.py | sdk/python/feast/feature_view.py — deprecated since Jul 2021 |
| sdk/python/feast/feature_store.py | sdk/python/feast/feature_store.py — deprecated since Jul 2021 |
| sdk/python/feast/entity.py | sdk/python/feast/entity.py — deprecated since Feb 2022 |
| sdk/python/feast/on_demand_feature_view.py | sdk/python/feast/on_demand_feature_view.py — deprecated since Mar 2022 |
| sdk/python/feast/data_source.py | sdk/python/feast/data_source.py — deprecated since Apr 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.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑7 Dockerfiles run 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 | go/infra/docker/feature-server/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | java/infra/docker/feature-server/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | sdk/python/feast/infra/compute_engines/aws_lambda/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | sdk/python/feast/infra/compute_engines/kubernetes/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.
41 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 8 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first41 of 2,325 locked dependencies match 104 published advisories in OSV, 50 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening ui/package-lock.json and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| ui/package-lock.json | ui/package-lock.json — protobufjs 7.5.4: GHSA-xq3m-2v4x-88gg (critical), fixed in 7.5.5 |
| infra/website/package-lock.json | infra/website/package-lock.json — astro 5.18.2: GHSA-26w7-cxv4-gfx2 (critical), fixed in 7.2.8; reached only by the build |
| ui/yarn.lock | ui/yarn.lock — happy-dom 16.8.1: GHSA-37j7-fg3j-429f (critical), fixed in 20.0.0 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The production build publishes source maps
adequateThe 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.
| ui/rollup.config.js | ui/rollup.config.js:33 — 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.
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.
9 data files are committed with no licence or dataset card
adequate9 data files sit in the repository and nothing beside them says where they came from or on what terms they may be used. For a model trained on them, that is the licence question of the deal. Ask for the source of each.
| ui/feature_repo/data/credit_history.parquet | ui/feature_repo/data/credit_history.parquet — data file, no licence |
| ui/feature_repo/data/credit_history_sample.csv | ui/feature_repo/data/credit_history_sample.csv — data file, no licence |
| ui/feature_repo/data/document_embeddings.parquet | ui/feature_repo/data/document_embeddings.parquet — data file, no licence |
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
adequate14 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/build_wheels.yml | .github/workflows/build_wheels.yml:103 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/build_wheels.yml | .github/workflows/build_wheels.yml:113 — 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.
7 SQL statements built from strings
adequate7 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 2 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.
| sdk/python/feast/infra/offline_stores/bigquery.py | sdk/python/feast/infra/offline_stores/bigquery.py:1545 — SQL built from a string |
| sdk/python/feast/infra/offline_stores/bigquery.py | sdk/python/feast/infra/offline_stores/bigquery.py:1563 — SQL built from a string |
| sdk/python/feast/infra/offline_stores/contrib/clickhouse_offline_store/clickhouse_source.py | sdk/python/feast/infra/offline_stores/contrib/clickhouse_offline_store/clickhouse_source.py:145 — 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.
14 deserialisers that can run code
adequate14 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (pickle, PHP `unserialize`). 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.
| sdk/python/feast/dqm/profilers/ge_profiler.py | sdk/python/feast/dqm/profilers/ge_profiler.py:158 — code-executing deserialiser |
| sdk/python/feast/infra/common/serde.py | sdk/python/feast/infra/common/serde.py:29 — code-executing deserialiser |
| sdk/python/feast/infra/common/serde.py | sdk/python/feast/infra/common/serde.py:37 — 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.
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 of 6 Kubernetes workloads declare no resource limits
adequate2 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.
| infra/feast-operator/config/default/manager_config_patch.yaml | infra/feast-operator/config/default/manager_config_patch.yaml — workload with no limits |
| infra/feast-operator/config/default/related_image_fs_patch.yaml | infra/feast-operator/config/default/related_image_fs_patch.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.
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.
| protos/feast/third_party/grpc | protos/feast/third_party/grpc — 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.
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 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 5 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-16. 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 0.67.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 8 records name feast with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2024-11602, CVE-2026-18941, CVE-2026-18942, …).
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.
| CVE-2026-92787 | 2026-09-16: CVE-2026-92787 (critical): Feast through 0.66.0 fails to verify JWT token signatures before establishing user identity, allowing attackers to bypass all role-based access control by prese |
| CVE-2026-56121 | 2026-06-24: CVE-2026-56121 (critical): Feast before 0.63.0 contains an unsafe deserialization vulnerability that allows unauthenticated or unauthorized attackers to achieve remote code execution by s |
| GHSA-2j2x-r73g-hrr5 | 2026-06-23: GHSA-2j2x-r73g-hrr5 (high): `pull_request_target` integration tests run untrusted fork code with production cloud secrets; the `ok-to-test` label guard is bypassable via label persistence |
| GHSA-34wm-4hw7-qfjv | 2026-01-01: GHSA-34wm-4hw7-qfjv (high), fixed in 0.54.0: Feast vulnerable to Deserialization of Untrusted Data |
| GHSA-wxpc-2674-rxvw | 2025-03-20: GHSA-wxpc-2674-rxvw (high): Feast Cross-Origin Resource Sharing vulnerability |
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.
1 of 6 deployments run a single replica
adequate1 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.
| infra/feast-operator/config/manager/manager.yaml | infra/feast-operator/config/manager/manager.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.
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
10 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 (docs/adr/ADR-0001-feature-services.md and 14 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 428 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 (docs/roadmap.md, last changed October 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?
- measured Experiment tracking is configured (mlflow). Can the model that ships be tied to the run, data and code that produced it?
- measured No model card is in the tree. What is the model's intended use, what was it trained on, and where does it fail?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (infra/feast-operator/bundle/manifests/feast-operator-featurestore-editor-role_rbac.authorization.k8s.io_v1_clusterrole.yaml). Has a restore ever been rehearsed, and how long did it take?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Python codebase, with TypeScript alongside (24% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in sdk/, infra/, ui/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (.gitpod.Dockerfile and 42 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/feast-dev/feast/e304a84)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 — 87 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 87 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 — 74
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 7,739 · top5 share 0.034 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 137 · per kloc 0.29 · lines read 469,380 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.666 · early test per code 0.547 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.216 · early delete per insert 0.712 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 506 · share 0.462 · with tests 234 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 1,057 · compat files 0 |
| 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 54 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 11 |
| 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 12 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 3 · floating 0 |
| 06.probes_identical | readiness and liveness are distinct, or not both setidentical 0 · workloads with both 4 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 13 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 8 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 7.9 · window last 24 months · authors 428 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 428 · active 12mo 135 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 428 · directories 8 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 428 · one off share 0.528 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 428 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than six months ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 192 |
| 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 20 · joined 38 · regular last year 46 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 2 · window last 24 months · with tracked 45 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 31 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 541 · source 1,528 · test ratio 0.354 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 181 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 4,779 · low content share 0.004 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 31 · with tests 14 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 4 · test files 611 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 31 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 4 · recent commits 1,262 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 6 · commits since 38 · days since lockfile changed 11 |
| 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 8 · ci configs 31 · product files 1,057 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 301 · share of insertions 0.0002 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.94 · repeat share 0.045 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,398 · write once share 0.426 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0205 · product files 987 · distinct blocks 156,363 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 471,647 · files 48 · per kloc 0.21 |
| 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 2,433 |
| 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.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 1 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on Apache-2.0license Apache-2.0 |
| 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 363 · added in two years 247 · removed within 60 days 8 |
| 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 29.5 · days since last tag 10 · commits last 90 days 210 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 87 · on branch 76 · tags in window 163 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 13
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 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.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.notebook_outputs | too few notebooks |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Python, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_html | not assessed for Python, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV Go github.com/feast-dev/feast (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @feast-dev/feast-ui (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 8 records name feast with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2024-11602, CVE-2026-18941, CVE-2026-18942, …) |
| 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 2FTN-BJHQ-ZXAE 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/2FTNBJHQZXAE?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: 307.6authenticated: False |
| 21.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 32.6s | read the git history | commits: 4851tracked files: 3178 |
| 192.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 192.7s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 290.8s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 290.8s | deleting the working copy |
Total 290.8s ·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).