577c683 · 50,000 commits · 9,244 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 4 raised something worth a question. 14 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 3 November 2026.
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 8% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- 46% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`
adequate1 of 7 `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.
| client/Dockerfile | client/Dockerfile:1 — base image without a version |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
lib/galaxy/model/__init__.py is 13,686 lines, 148× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 92 lines. 81 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 13,686. 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 86% 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/galaxy/model/__init__.py:1 — 13,686 lines (148× median) |
| line-count | lib/tool_shed/webapp/frontend/src/schema/schema.ts:1 — 7,290 lines (79× median) |
| line-count | client/src/libs/jquery/jstree.js:1 — 6,744 lines (73× median) |
| line-count | lib/galaxy/datatypes/binary.py:1 — 5,997 lines (65× median) |
| line-count | lib/galaxy/schema/schema.py:1 — 4,785 lines (52× 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.
A move from JavaScript to TypeScript began 48 months ago and is 80% done
adequate586 product files are in the new language and 148 are still in the old one, 48 months after the first new file appeared. The new language's share of the lines rose from 0% to 95%, and moved 2 percentage points in the last year. Two languages for one job doubles what an engineer has to know, and the unmoved half is usually what nobody wants to touch. Ask whether finishing it is planned, and what it costs.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| file counts | 148 old, 586 new |
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 · adequate · ratings ↑104 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatepyproject.toml declares 104 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 | pyproject.toml — 104 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/app/pyproject.toml — 50 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/web_apps/pyproject.toml — 35 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/data/pyproject.toml — 34 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.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑4 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 | client/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | lib/galaxy/tool_util/deps/dockerfiles.py — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | lib/galaxy/web/proxy/js/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | packages/job_execution/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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate15 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/_build_client.yaml | .github/workflows/_build_client.yaml:25 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/api.yaml | .github/workflows/api.yaml:76 — action pinned by tag |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
21 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate21 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| cron/build_chrom_db.py | cron/build_chrom_db.py:41 — outbound call without a timeout |
| cron/parse_builds.py | cron/parse_builds.py:16 — outbound call without a timeout |
| cron/parse_builds_3_sites.py | cron/parse_builds_3_sites.py:24 — outbound call without a timeout |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
9 shell commands built from strings
adequate9 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/galaxy/datatypes/sequence.py | lib/galaxy/datatypes/sequence.py:843 — command run through a shell |
| lib/galaxy/datatypes/tabular.py | lib/galaxy/datatypes/tabular.py:863 — command run through a shell |
| lib/galaxy/job_execution/container_monitor.py | lib/galaxy/job_execution/container_monitor.py:28 — 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.
2 deserialisers that can run code
adequate2 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (`yaml.load` without a safe loader). 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/galaxy/util/yaml_util.py | lib/galaxy/util/yaml_util.py:27 — code-executing deserialiser |
| lib/galaxy/util/yaml_util.py | lib/galaxy/util/yaml_util.py:69 — 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.
1 of 1 Kubernetes workloads declare no resource limits
adequate1 workload manifests set no CPU or memory limits. One pod that leaks memory or spins can starve everything else on its node, and the scheduler cannot plan capacity for what it cannot see.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .ci/minikube-test-setup/deployment.yaml | .ci/minikube-test-setup/deployment.yaml — workload with no limits |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
12 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate12 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.
| client/src/components/Libraries/LibraryFolder/TopToolbar/import-to-history/import-dataset.js | client/src/components/Libraries/LibraryFolder/TopToolbar/import-to-history/import-dataset.js:124 — HTML from a variable |
| client/src/components/Workflow/Editor/Comments/MarkdownComment.vue | client/src/components/Workflow/Editor/Comments/MarkdownComment.vue:56 — HTML from a variable |
| client/src/composables/formattedToolHelp.js | client/src/composables/formattedToolHelp.js:31 — 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.
16 vendored components with no licence
adequateThird-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| lib/galaxy/tool_util/deps/commands.py | lib/galaxy/tool_util/deps/commands.py — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| lib/galaxy/tool_util/deps/conda_compat.py | lib/galaxy/tool_util/deps/conda_compat.py — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| lib/galaxy/tool_util/deps/conda_util.py | lib/galaxy/tool_util/deps/conda_util.py — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| lib/galaxy/tool_util/deps/container_classes.py | lib/galaxy/tool_util/deps/container_classes.py — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| lib/galaxy/tool_util/deps/container_resolvers | lib/galaxy/tool_util/deps/container_resolvers — 2 tracked files, no licence file |
| lib/galaxy/tool_util/deps/container_volumes.py | lib/galaxy/tool_util/deps/container_volumes.py — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| logging-scan | searched 6,254 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 of 1 deployments run a single replica
adequate1 deployments set `replicas: 1`, and nothing (an autoscaler, a disruption budget) adds more. Every deploy and every node drain is downtime, and the availability the buyer inherits has a ceiling.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .ci/minikube-test-setup/deployment.yaml | .ci/minikube-test-setup/deployment.yaml — replicas: 1 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
7 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 4,116 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 251 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 10,064 commits landed in the last year, against 6,293 the year before (+60%). 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 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 Alert rules are defined in the repository. Who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Python codebase, with TypeScript alongside (30% 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 lib/, client/, packages/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (.k8s_ci.Dockerfile 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/galaxyproject/galaxy/577c683)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 — 91 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 91 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 — 70
| 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 (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026)files 13,732 · top5 share 0.03 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 1,231 · per kloc 1.07 · lines read 1,150,869 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026) · late test per code 0.454 · early test per code 0.317 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026) · late delete per insert 0.743 · early delete per insert 0.832 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 2,457 · share 0.405 · with tests 994 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 0 · columns added last year 12 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 3,073 · compat files 3 |
| 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 36 |
| 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 False · request id sites 48 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 2 · config files 0 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.alert_rules | alert rules are defined as codealert files 1 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 2 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 11 · release commits 13 · changelog commits 56 |
| 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 251 · top share less than a quarter |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 122 |
| 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 15 · joined 27 · regular last year 63 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 4,191 · window last 24 months · with tracked 369 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 47 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,973 · source 5,043 · test ratio 0.391 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026)sampled 39,796 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026) · low content share 0.022 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 47 · with tests 25 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 18 · test files 3,661 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 47 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 27 · recent commits 16,357 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 3 · commits since 76 · days since lockfile changed 2 |
| 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 13 · ci configs 47 · product files 3,073 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.139 · merges 1,936 · long lived 269 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.004 · commits 15,010 · over 2000 lines 55 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was a branch merged by a merge commit, developed on its own branch and landed in one piece (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays it, in the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026) · largest commits 1117580..91a5978 · bursts explained 1 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026) · length stdev 26.28 · repeat share 0.104 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0044 · product files 3,071 · distinct blocks 430,858 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,157,067 · files 105 · per kloc 0.16 |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture paths; the only other matches are expired or licence tokens or placeholders, which grant nothingnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 6,254 |
| 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.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.077 · migrations 13 · irreversible 1 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 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.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 42 |
| 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.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 11 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 342 · added in two years 259 · removed within 60 days 3 |
| 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 37.5 · days since last tag 8 · commits last 90 days 5,832 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyed, in the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026)elsewhere 2 · on branch 48 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026) |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 21
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 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 (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (18 Nov 2020 to 3 Nov 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; the only other matches are expired or licence tokens or placeholders, which grant nothing |
| 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 |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm @galaxyproject/galaxy-client (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-config (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-files (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-job-execution (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-job-metrics (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-navigation (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-objectstore (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-schema (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-tool-shed (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-tool-shed-schema (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-tool-util (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-tool-util-models (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-tours (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-util (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-web-apps (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-web-client (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-web-framework (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-web-stack (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @galaxyproject/galaxy-api-client (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 182 records name galaxy with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2012-2980, CVE-2012-6334, CVE-2012-6337, …) |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; OSV npm @galaxyproject/galaxy-client (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-config (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-files (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-job-execution (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-job-metrics (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-navigation (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-objectstore (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-schema (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-tool-shed (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-tool-shed-schema (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-tool-util (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-tool-util-models (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-tours (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-util (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-web-apps (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-web-client (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-web-framework (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI galaxy-web-stack (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @galaxyproject/galaxy-api-client (an empty record for a package published here) did not answer; NVD: 182 records name galaxy with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2012-2980, CVE-2012-6334, CVE-2012-6337, …) |
| 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 YE6Y-7S4V-DKN3 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/YE6Y7S4VDKN3?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: 747.9authenticated: False |
| 157.3s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 212.8s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 9244 |
| 601.4s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 601.5s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 869.9s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 869.9s | deleting the working copy |
Total 869.9s ·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).