043f5b6 · 50,000 commits · 5,854 files
Issued 2026-10-22
Reads strong: 5 of 5 rated dimensions are strong and none is significant.
106 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 7 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
This repository reads strong. Show it in your README: the badge links to a page where anyone can check the reading. 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/YHRSJYRM5XTW?via=badge)- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | strong | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 6% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑erpnext/stock/doctype/serial_and_batch_bundle/serial_and_batch_bundle.py is 3,970 lines, 136× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 29 lines. 74 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,970. 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 | erpnext/stock/doctype/serial_and_batch_bundle/serial_and_batch_bundle.py:1 — 3,970 lines (136× median) |
| line-count | erpnext/public/js/controllers/transaction.js:1 — 3,530 lines (121× median) |
| line-count | erpnext/accounts/doctype/payment_entry/payment_entry.py:1 — 3,375 lines (116× median) |
| line-count | erpnext/stock/stock_ledger.py:1 — 3,254 lines (112× median) |
| line-count | erpnext/accounts/utils.py:1 — 2,905 lines (100× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v16.52.1, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v13.9.0. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) only; older history was not read.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| ade850bbd | tag v16.52.1 |
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.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · strong · ratings ↑1 environment file is committed
adequatebanking/.env.production is tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| banking/.env.production | banking/.env.production — committed environment file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate4 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/initiate_release.yml | .github/workflows/initiate_release.yml:32 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/lock.yml | .github/workflows/lock.yml:17 — action pinned by tag |
| .oss-scanner/Dockerfile | .oss-scanner/Dockerfile:41 — 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.
8 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 19 high or critical
adequate8 of 457 locked dependencies match 32 published advisories in OSV, 19 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.
| banking/yarn.lock | banking/yarn.lock — axios 1.18.1: GHSA-3pq3-5fj3-cg6v (high), fixed in 1.20.0 |
| banking/yarn.lock | banking/yarn.lock — brace-expansion 5.0.7: GHSA-6j4f-fj2g-mc7p (high), fixed in 5.0.10 |
| banking/yarn.lock | banking/yarn.lock — brace-expansion 5.0.9: GHSA-6j4f-fj2g-mc7p (high), fixed in 5.0.10 |
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 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate8 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| erpnext/public/js/financial_statements.js | erpnext/public/js/financial_statements.js:204 — HTML from a variable |
| erpnext/selling/page/point_of_sale/pos_payment.js | erpnext/selling/page/point_of_sale/pos_payment.js:223 — HTML from a variable |
| erpnext/www/book_appointment/index.js | erpnext/www/book_appointment/index.js:36 — HTML from a variable |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
183 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 102 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-12. 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 165 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 13.9.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-5wpj-6rvp-9ff7 (high), GHSA-3x6c-gc4v-f5v8 (moderate), GHSA-qq49-v74j-hjh7 (critical) and 4 more are fixed in the surveyed commit; which release carries them cannot be told from this history, which does not place the release users run. Answer lives in: the version you run. The record is incomplete: NVD: 20 records name erpnext with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2018-3882, CVE-2018-3883, CVE-2018-3884, …).
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-2026-109376 | 2026-10-12: CVE-2026-109376 (moderate): ERPNext 15.55.0 through 16.50.0 contains an incorrect authorization vulnerability in the get_timesheet_html method that lets authenticated portal users view pro |
| CVE-2026-109377 | 2026-10-12: CVE-2026-109377 (moderate): ERPNext 9.0.0 through 16.50.0 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows authenticated users to view stock quantities via whitelisted batch meth |
| CVE-2025-71432 | 2026-10-12: CVE-2025-71432 (high): Frappe ERPNext before 14.92.1 and 15.x before 15.83.0 contains a reflected cross-site scripting vulnerability due to missing input validation on a certain page, |
| CVE-2026-109604 | 2026-10-12: CVE-2026-109604 (high): Frappe ERPNext before 15.112.0 and 16.x before 16.23.0 contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability because a tool view interpolates stored record names |
| CVE-2026-109608 | 2026-10-12: CVE-2026-109608 (high): Frappe ERPNext before 15.121.0 and 16.x before 16.34.0 contains an SQL injection vulnerability in several endpoints that lack input validation. Any authenticate |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
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
3 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 (erpnext/manufacturing/scheduling/DESIGN.md). 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 794 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 7,518 commits landed in the last year, against 3,143 the year before (+139%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured A threat model is in the tree (.oss-scanner/threat_model.md). Does it name the assets this code actually handles, and is it current against the deployment?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverageNot rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- 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 JavaScript alongside (20% 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 erpnext/, banking/, semgrep/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (.oss-scanner/Dockerfile). 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/frappe/erpnext/043f5b6)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 — 99 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 99 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 — 64
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few files, in the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026)files 17,060 · top5 share 0.033 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 40 · per kloc 0.04 · lines read 1,009,033 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) · late test per code 0.513 · early test per code 0.172 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) · late delete per insert 0.733 · early delete per insert 0.555 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 7,033 · share 0.338 · with tests 2,380 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 5,604 |
| 06.structured_logging | not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthswindow last 24 months · authors 794 · top share less than a quarter |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 303 |
| 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 25 · joined 55 · regular last year 93 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 3,763 · window last 24 months · with tracked 38 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 22 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 583 · source 3,882 · test ratio 0.15 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026)sampled 35,734 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) · low content share 0.015 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 22 · with tests 4 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 585 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 22 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.004 · reverts 45 · recent commits 10,671 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 2,969 · days since lockfile changed 49 |
| 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 4 · ci configs 22 · product files 3,299 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.019 · merges 3,612 · long lived 68 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.005 · commits 10,174 · over 2000 lines 46 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was data and assets (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays it, in the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) · largest commits c080479..ae696d0 · bursts explained 6 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) · length stdev 21.32 · repeat share 0.117 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0109 · product files 3,299 · distinct blocks 281,406 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,013,840 · files 21 · per kloc 0.02 |
| 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 5,604 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | every shipped Dockerfile drops to a non-root user or builds on a non-root base imagedockerfiles 1 |
| 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.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on GPL-3.0license GPL-3.0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as GPL-3.0class strong-copyleft · license GPL-3.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 87 · added in two years 50 · removed within 60 days 2 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 4,400 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 35
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Apr 2016 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was added outside test and fixture paths in the 20,000 most recent commits scanned; older history was not read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | 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 |
| 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 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 20 records name erpnext with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2018-3882, CVE-2018-3883, CVE-2018-3884, …); 7 are fixed in the surveyed commit, and the release users run is not placed by this history |
| 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 YHRS-JYRM-5XTW 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/YHRSJYRM5XTW?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: 1970.8authenticated: False |
| 138.9s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 249.6s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 5854 |
| 576.3s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 576.4s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 863.9s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 863.9s | deleting the working copy |
Total 863.9s ·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).