ba1db58 · 7,445 commits · 1,526 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Significant: one contributor carries the recent work.
1 of 6 assessable dimensions carries significant findings, 1 is adequate and 4 are strong. 6 findings, each with its evidence: the commit, path and lines it rests on, or, when something is missing, what was looked for. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 03.1 Significant: Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions CONTRIBUTING.md:53
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | significant findings | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 71% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- deep scan blamed 1,524 of 1,524 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑Commit messages are templated rather than written
adequate65% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 13.9 characters. A log written by someone explaining their reasoning to a future reader does not look like this. The log is therefore weak evidence of intent, whatever the code is like.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| commit-subjects | 243× 'Translated using Weblate (Spanish)' |
| commit-subjects | 236× 'Translated using Weblate (French)' |
| commit-subjects | 157× 'Translated using Weblate (Chinese (Simplified))' |
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 · significant findings · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
significant findingsIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored three-quarters or more of 690 non-merge commits among 146 authors; across all history, more than half of 6,647. This is the single most expensive thing to discover after closing, and the repository cannot tell you whether that person is part of the transaction.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author three-quarters or more of 690 commits; bus factor 1; 146 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.
The contributor who wrote more than half of this has not committed here for more than three years
adequateOne person authored more than half of 6,647 commits and has not committed here for more than three years, while the repository has kept moving. The concentration figure alone would not show this. Whoever is changing this code now is not the person who wrote most of it, which is the situation an acquirer is usually told they are avoiding. The history shows only that no commits of theirs landed here, not why.
| last-commit-by-top-author | last commit more than three years ago, measured to the survey |
| git shortlog -sn | top author more than half of 6,647 commits |
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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑1 Dockerfile runs the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
| no-USER-instruction | 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.
6 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 5 high or critical
adequate6 of 808 locked dependencies match 9 published advisories in OSV, 5 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. None of the high or critical ones is in what the product ships: they are development dependencies.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — brace-expansion 5.0.9: GHSA-6j4f-fj2g-mc7p (high), fixed in 5.0.10; a development dependency |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — js-yaml 4.3.1: GHSA-2883-xcg3-v3hh (high), fixed in 4.3.2; a development dependency |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — nanoid 3.3.17: GHSA-2v37-7h3g-55p8 (high), fixed in 3.3.18; a development dependency |
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.
4 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-17. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 98 records name homepage with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2002-1427, CVE-2006-1023, CVE-2006-1774, …).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| GHSA-qxcr-4rv3-v23r | 2026-10-17: GHSA-qxcr-4rv3-v23r (high), fixed in 2.6.0: Authentication gate bypass via Next.js on-demand revalidation header |
| GHSA-669x-4pg4-w24r | 2026-09-02: GHSA-669x-4pg4-w24r (moderate), fixed in 2.2.0: Homepage service proxy allows client-controlled methods and bodies to configured widget endpoints |
| GHSA-rg3r-jprv-xq38 | 2026-04-01: GHSA-rg3r-jprv-xq38 (moderate), fixed in 1.12.3: Path Traversal and Endpoint Bypass in Glances Widget Handler |
| GHSA-c4qv-fm8g-wm67 | 2025-08-13: GHSA-c4qv-fm8g-wm67 (moderate), fixed in v1.4.5: Arbitrary Path Existence Disclosure in Resources Endpoint |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
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
2 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 687 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 One contributor authored more than half of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a JavaScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run JavaScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in public/, src/, images/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (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/gethomepage/homepage/ba1db58)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 — 98 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 98 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 — 75
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 1,823 · top5 share 0.087 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 1 · per kloc 0.01 · lines read 141,806 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 2.527 · early test per code 0.0 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.343 · early delete per insert 0.463 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 189 · share 0.222 · with tests 42 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 577 · compat files 0 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 2 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 3 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 1 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 0 · config files 1 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 25 · release commits 21 · changelog commits 2 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 527 · active 12mo 57 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 527 · one off share 0.696 |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 146 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 54 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 11 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 578 · source 1,155 · test ratio 0.5 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 166 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 7,038 · low content share 0.008 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 11 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 578 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 11 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.004 · reverts 3 · recent commits 690 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 3 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 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 3 · ci configs 11 · product files 577 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.002 · commits 623 · over 2000 lines 1 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 674 · share of insertions 0.002 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 677 · write once share 0.176 |
| 01.oversized_modules | no module is an outlier against this codebase's own normlargest 810 · threshold 1,000 · median lines 46 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0265 · product files 577 · distinct blocks 21,409 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 143,266 · files 1 · per kloc 0.01 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 2 |
| 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 1,462 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 315,642 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 43 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0 |
| 05.unsafe_html | raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as 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 108 · added in two years 26 · 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 6.5 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 207 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release, v2.7.0, was made after the surveyed commit on the branch surveyedelsewhere 1 · on branch 162 · tags in window 164 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 23
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.knowledge_silos | too few substantial top-level directories to read ownership |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for JavaScript, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two years |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 98 records name homepage with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2002-1427, CVE-2006-1023, CVE-2006-1774, …) |
| 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 77TE-P1M5-2MAC 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/77TEP1M52MAC?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: 56.4authenticated: False |
| 4.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 7.5s | read the git history | commits: 7445tracked files: 1526 |
| 82.4s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 82.4s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 99.7s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 99.7s | deleting the working copy |
Total 99.7s ·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).