3f59af5 · 5,374 commits · 927 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance.
106 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 13 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.
- 05.26 1 locked dependency has published vulnerabilities, 1 high or critical in what ships
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 62% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- deep scan blamed 841 of 841 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑The repository begins with most of itself already written
adequateThe first commit carries 1,739,742 lines — 68% of every line ever added. Whatever happened before that commit happened somewhere this repository cannot show you, so the early history is not available as evidence of how the system was designed.
| 692cc98 | 2019-02-16T16:16:47+00:00; +1,739,742 across 2970 files; subject: 'Initial commit' |
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.
rpc/v2/environments/environments.pb.gw.go is 1,640 lines, 15× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 104 lines. 6 files exceed 1,040 lines, the largest being 1,640. 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 | rpc/v2/environments/environments.pb.gw.go:1 — 1,640 lines (15× median) |
| line-count | cmd/flipt/quickstart.go:1 — 1,538 lines (14× median) |
| line-count | rpc/flipt/auth/auth.pb.gw.go:1 — 1,371 lines (13× median) |
| line-count | internal/storage/git/repository.go:1 — 1,321 lines (12× median) |
| line-count | internal/server/environments/environments_mock.go:1 — 1,243 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 ↑Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (ui/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.
| ui/playwright.config.ts | ui/playwright.config.ts:29 — 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 659 non-merge commits among 32 authors; across all history, more than half of 2,535. In a project with 32 recent contributors and 8 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 659 commits; bus factor 1; 32 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.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑95 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatego.mod declares 95 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.
| direct-dependencies | go.mod — 95 declared |
| direct-dependencies | ui/package.json — 34 declared |
| direct-dependencies | rpc/flipt/go.mod — 8 declared |
| direct-dependencies | rpc/v2/environments/go.mod — 6 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.
5 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate5 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Oct 2022. 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.
| rpc/flipt/flipt.pb.go | rpc/flipt/flipt.pb.go — deprecated since Oct 2022 |
| rpc/flipt/auth/auth.pb.go | rpc/flipt/auth/auth.pb.go — deprecated since Nov 2022 |
| rpc/flipt/evaluation/evaluation.pb.go | rpc/flipt/evaluation/evaluation.pb.go — deprecated since Jul 2023 |
| rpc/flipt/audit/event.pb.go | rpc/flipt/audit/event.pb.go — deprecated since Jul 2024 |
| rpc/flipt/ofrep/ofrep.pb.go | rpc/flipt/ofrep/ofrep.pb.go — deprecated since Jul 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 ↑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 | ui/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.
1 locked dependency has published vulnerabilities, 1 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first1 of 516 locked dependencies match 1 published advisories in OSV, 1 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.
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 settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| ui/package-lock.json | ui/package-lock.json — zod 3.25.76: GHSA-mrhx-c7xc-m3w5 (high), fixed in 4.6.6 |
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
adequate13 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; 9 steps pipe a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/devcontainer.yml | .github/workflows/devcontainer.yml:23 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/integration-test.yml | .github/workflows/integration-test.yml:87 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/nightly.yml | .github/workflows/nightly.yml:37 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
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 SQL statement built from strings
adequate1 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. 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.
| internal/server/analytics/clickhouse/client.go | internal/server/analytics/clickhouse/client.go:102 — 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.
Relicensed: GPL-3.0 → MIT (2025-01-22)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 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".
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, 1 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-23. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed 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-5gq3-jqg2-3c53 | 2026-10-23: GHSA-5gq3-jqg2-3c53 (moderate), fixed in 2.14.1: Authorization (RBAC) bypass on the AuthenticationService: any authenticated principal can list/read/delete all users' authentications regardless of policy |
| GHSA-mfm6-3c77-m4hw | 2026-10-23: GHSA-mfm6-3c77-m4hw (moderate), fixed in 2.14.1: ListFlags authorizes protobuf EnvironmentKey then serves X-Flipt-Environment (confused deputy) |
| GHSA-28fq-3x47-6xj3 | 2026-10-23: GHSA-28fq-3x47-6xj3 (moderate), fixed in 2.14.0: The v2 RBAC authorization engine, which Flipt documents as giving admins environment and namespace scoped access control, is never consulted for the ClientEvalu |
| GHSA-9frf-rp7p-pgm3 | 2026-10-23: GHSA-9frf-rp7p-pgm3 (moderate), fixed in 2.14.1: Unvalidated namespace keys let callers commit orphaned, unlistable, undeletable state into the Git-backed config repository |
| GHSA-pmqf-5xx4-77h6 | 2026-10-23: GHSA-pmqf-5xx4-77h6 (high), fixed in 2.13.1: 'DeleteBranchEnvironment` evicts an arbitrary environment from the running server, authorized as a `read` on a different environment |
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
5 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 (cmd/flipt/DESIGN.md and 1 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 One contributor authored more than half of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- 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 204 commits landed in the last year, against 455 the year before (-55%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three.
- 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 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 Go codebase, with TypeScript alongside (42% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in ui/, internal/, build/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile.dev and 3 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/flipt-io/flipt/3f59af5)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 — 93 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 93 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 — 78
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 7,136 · top5 share 0.043 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 36 · per kloc 0.25 · lines read 141,667 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.629 · early test per code 1.137 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.633 · early delete per insert 0.439 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 261 · share 0.502 · with tests 131 |
| 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 422 · 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 48 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 138 |
| 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 10 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 1 · settings off 4 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 16 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 27 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 89 · active 12mo 22 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 89 · directories 8 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 89 · one off share 0.584 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 89 · top share more than half · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 32 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 4 · joined 4 · regular last year 6 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 57 · window last 24 months · with tracked 29 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 12 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 143 · source 527 · test ratio 0.271 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 261 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 5,025 · low content share 0.014 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 12 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 2 · test files 344 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 12 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 659 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 12 · commits since 2 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 4 · ci configs 12 · product files 422 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.0 · merges 37 · long lived 0 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.035 · commits 547 · over 2000 lines 19 |
| 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.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 19.94 · repeat share 0.045 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 476 · write once share 0.206 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0135 · product files 384 · distinct blocks 44,518 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 142,451 · 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 829 |
| 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_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 2,383,181 |
| 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.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.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0 |
| 05.unsafe_html | raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 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_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 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 385 · added in two years 140 · removed within 60 days 1 |
| 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 15.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 194 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 91 · on branch 121 · tags in window 212 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_advisories | no published advisory affects the surveyed versionaffecting 0 · exploited 0 · advisories 6 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 15
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.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.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_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 |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 7PFG-015R-CCE2 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/7PFG015RCCE2?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: 106.7authenticated: False |
| 10.7s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 19.2s | read the git history | commits: 5374tracked files: 927 |
| 177.4s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 177.4s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 219.3s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 219.3s | deleting the working copy |
Total 219.3s ·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).