f68b7b1 · 14,724 commits · 12,488 files
Issued 2026-10-28
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
100 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 5 raised something worth a question. 15 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- names CNCF GOVERNANCE.md:3
- 6 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 | strong | |
| 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 |
- 99% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- 35% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`
adequate1 of 70 `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.
| dockerfiles/Dockerfile | dockerfiles/Dockerfile:187 — 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.
lib/onigmo/enc/unicode/name2ctype.h is 45,682 lines, 343× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 133 lines. 318 files exceed 1,330 lines, the largest being 45,682. 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 97% 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 | lib/onigmo/enc/unicode/name2ctype.h:1 — 45,682 lines (343× median) |
| line-count | lib/wasm-micro-runtime-WAMR-2.4.1/core/iwasm/interpreter/wasm_loader.c:1 — 16,845 lines (126× median) |
| line-count | lib/nghttp2-1.65.0/third-party/mruby/mrbgems/mruby-compiler/core/y.tab.c:1 — 14,436 lines (108× median) |
| line-count | lib/sqlite-amalgamation-3510100/sqlite3.h:1 — 13,969 lines (105× median) |
| line-count | lib/librdkafka-2.15.0/src/rdkafka.h:1 — 11,796 lines (88× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: one account applies recent work
adequateIn the last 24 months, one account applied or wrote more than half of 3,545 non-merge commits, most of them written by others, among 152 authors; across all history, one contributor authored a quarter or more of 14,038. Every change passes through that one account, however many people write them. In a project with 152 recent contributors and 13 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 log --format='%cE' | last 24 months: one committer more than half of 3,545 commits; bus factor 1; 152 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 ↑16% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 392 fixes in the last 24 months, 62 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| fix commits touching tests | 62 of 392 |
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.
Ruby 3.2 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Ruby 3.2 (end of life 2026-03-31). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2026-03-31. 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.
| lib/nghttp2-1.65.0/third-party/mruby/Dockerfile | lib/nghttp2-1.65.0/third-party/mruby/Dockerfile — Ruby 3.2, end of life 2026-03-31 |
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.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑11 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 | dockerfiles/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | lib/nghttp2-1.65.0/third-party/mruby/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | lib/wasm-micro-runtime-WAMR-2.4.1/product-mini/platforms/zephyr/simple/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | lib/zstd-1.5.7/contrib/docker/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.
8 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 6 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-08. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. The record is incomplete: NVD: 1 record names fluent-bit with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2025-12978).
| GHSA-jrp8-r9hx-gf73 | 2026-09-08: GHSA-jrp8-r9hx-gf73 (critical): Remote stack buffer overflow in Fluent Bit `out_forward` Secure-Forward `PONG` handler |
| CVE-2025-12969 | 2025-11-24: CVE-2025-12969 (moderate): Fluent Bit in_forward input plugin does not properly enforce the security.users authentication mechanism under certain configuration conditions. This allows rem |
| CVE-2025-12970 | 2025-11-24: CVE-2025-12970 (high): The extract_name function in Fluent Bit in_docker input plugin copies container names into a fixed size stack buffer without validating length. An attacker who |
| CVE-2025-12972 | 2025-11-24: CVE-2025-12972 (moderate): Fluent Bit out_file plugin does not properly sanitize tag values when deriving output file names. When the File option is omitted, the plugin uses untrusted tag |
| CVE-2025-12977 | 2025-11-24: CVE-2025-12977 (critical): Fluent Bit in_http, in_splunk, and in_elasticsearch input plugins fail to sanitize tag_key inputs. An attacker with network access or the ability to write recor |
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
adequate21 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day; 1 step pipes a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/call-build-images.yaml | .github/workflows/call-build-images.yaml:444 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/call-build-images.yaml | .github/workflows/call-build-images.yaml:561 — action pinned by tag |
| packaging/test-release-packages.sh | packaging/test-release-packages.sh:15 — 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.
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.
| lib/librdkafka-2.15.0/packaging/nuget/release.py | lib/librdkafka-2.15.0/packaging/nuget/release.py:164 — command run through a shell |
| lib/nghttp2-1.65.0/third-party/mruby/lib/mruby/gem.rb | lib/nghttp2-1.65.0/third-party/mruby/lib/mruby/gem.rb:168 — 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.
1 deserialiser that can run code
adequate1 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (Ruby `Marshal.load`). 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.
| lib/nghttp2-1.65.0/third-party/mruby/lib/mruby/build.rb | lib/nghttp2-1.65.0/third-party/mruby/lib/mruby/build.rb:552 — 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 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 1 high or critical
adequate2 of 11 locked dependencies match 5 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. 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.
| lib/nghttp2-1.65.0/third-party/mruby/Gemfile.lock | lib/nghttp2-1.65.0/third-party/mruby/Gemfile.lock — webrick 1.7.0: GHSA-6f62-3596-g6w7 (high), fixed in 1.8.2 |
| lib/nghttp2-1.65.0/third-party/mruby/Gemfile.lock | lib/nghttp2-1.65.0/third-party/mruby/Gemfile.lock — yard 0.9.28: GHSA-3jfp-46x4-xgfj (moderate), fixed in 0.9.42 |
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 | C source is not searched: C programs log through printf-style calls unless they take a library, and none of the 10 searched for is referenced |
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.
One request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.
| request ids | no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
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.
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.
3 of 5 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate3 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.
| docker_compose/node-exporter-dashboard/docker-compose.yml | docker_compose/node-exporter-dashboard/docker-compose.yml:5 — image without a version |
| docker_compose/node-exporter-dashboard/docker-compose.yml | docker_compose/node-exporter-dashboard/docker-compose.yml:16 — image without a version |
| docker_compose/node-exporter-dashboard/docker-compose.yml | docker_compose/node-exporter-dashboard/docker-compose.yml:30 — 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.
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
8 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 (lib/cmetrics/docs/architecture.md and 2 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 a quarter or more 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 2,290 commits landed in the last year, against 1,229 the year before (+86%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- measured A roadmap file is in the tree (lib/wasm-micro-runtime-WAMR-2.4.1/doc/roadmap.md). A file is not a plan. Does it match the roadmap in the data room, and has the team delivered the last one it wrote?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 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 C codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run C in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in lib/, plugins/, src/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 20 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/fluent/fluent-bit/f68b7b1)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 — 85 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 85 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 — 57
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 54,146 · top5 share 0.021 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 1,180 · per kloc 0.48 · lines read 2,462,380 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.272 · early test per code 0.111 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.384 · early delete per insert 0.471 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.009 · code files 4,557 · compat files 40 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 119 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 31 · release commits 17 · changelog commits 6 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 564 · active 12mo 92 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 564 · one off share 0.537 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 564 · top share a quarter or more · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 152 |
| 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 13 · joined 34 · regular last year 42 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 23 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 106 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,045 · source 6,514 · test ratio 0.314 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 334 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 14,265 · low content share 0.001 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 99 · with tests 33 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 4,842 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 106 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 2 · recent commits 3,545 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 12 · commits since 1,985 · days since lockfile changed 252 |
| 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 14 · ci configs 106 · product files 4,557 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.01 · commits 3,294 · over 2000 lines 34 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 23 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 17.09 · repeat share 0.047 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 3,786 · write once share 0.466 |
| 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 6,016 |
| 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.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 18 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 18 · stated in headers or notices 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 1 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 112 · added in two years 66 · 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.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 8.0 · days since last tag 7 · commits last 90 days 1,045 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 166 · on branch 125 · tags in window 291 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 28
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for C: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | a reporting host is named, but no setting shows whether it is used by default |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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.swallowed_errors | not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two years |
| 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 CWT9-GEK8-K4P3 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/CWT9GEK8K4P3?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: 152.7authenticated: False |
| 17.4s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 43.2s | read the git history | commits: 14724tracked files: 12488 |
| 219.8s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 219.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 368.9s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 368.9s | deleting the working copy |
Total 368.9s ·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).