Borehole · Risk register · free tier

getmaxun/maxun

Free reading: not for reliance

8f2ab6b · 7,733 commits · 294 files
Issued 2026-10-23

Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Product & Engineering Maturity, Security & Reliability Posture.

104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 2 findings are worth checking first. 16 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.

What the repository says about itself

states a policy on AI-generated contributions CONTRIBUTING.md:48

Worth checking first

Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.

02.3 Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase
03.5 The contributor who wrote a quarter or more of this has not committed here for more than a year

Published under today's rules. The verification code attests to this reading as it was stored. This page differs from it as follows.

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	adequate
03	Organization & Key-Person Risk	adequate
04	Product & Engineering Maturity	adequate
05	Security & Reliability Posture	adequate
06	Observability & Operations	strong
07	Fit with the Acquirer	not assessable

strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository

Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating

6% of the code standing today was written in AI-declared commits

6% of lines still in the tree 5,448 of 92,696 4% of lines ever added these differ when early hand-written code has since been replaced

10% of lines added in the last 12 months (since 2025-10-23) arrived in AI-declared commits: 20/1,229 commits, confidence low. Also a floor.

20/6,790 commits declaring an agent · Claude Fable 5, Claude Opus 5, Claude Opus 5.5 and 1 more

confidence: moderate

0% 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
deep scan blamed 294 of 294 counted files

23,732 lines excluded as lockfiles, vendored or generated.

This is a lower bound. It counts what the repository declares. Undeclared AI authorship is invisible here, and a single rebase removes the trailers this rests on. Absence of a declaration is absence of disclosure, not absence of AI authorship.

Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance

01 · strong · ratings ↑

Notes that do not affect this rating

01.6

src/helpers/clientSelectorGenerator.ts is 4,499 lines, 35× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 127 lines. 16 files exceed 1,270 lines, the largest being 4,499. 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.

Evidence

line-count	`src/helpers/clientSelectorGenerator.ts:1` — 4,499 lines (35× median)
line-count	`maxun-core/src/interpret.ts:1` — 3,310 lines (26× median)
line-count	`server/src/workflow-management/selector.ts:1` — 3,092 lines (24× median)
line-count	`server/src/sdk/workflowEnricher.ts:1` — 3,030 lines (23× median)
line-count	`server/src/sdk/browserSide/pageAnalyzer.js:1` — 2,811 lines (22× 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.

01.15

55 errors caught and discarded in product code

adequate

55 places catch an error and do nothing with it, across 14 files (0.6 per thousand lines). Each is a failure the system will not report. They surface later as problems nobody can explain, and they are cheap to fix now.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

maxun-core/src/interpret.ts	`maxun-core/src/interpret.ts:597` — error caught and discarded
maxun-core/src/interpret.ts	`maxun-core/src/interpret.ts:612` — error caught and discarded
maxun-core/src/interpret.ts	`maxun-core/src/interpret.ts:681` — error caught and discarded

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.

Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity

02 · adequate · ratings ↑

02.3

Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase

adequate worth checking first

1 test files against 234 source files (0.4%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.

The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.

Evidence

test-file-ratio

1 test files / 234 source files

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.

A note that does not affect this rating

02.6

Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository

adequate

Of five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: contribution guidance. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

process-scaffolding

1 of 5 markers present across 294 tracked files

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.

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · adequate · ratings ↑

03.1

Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor

adequate

In the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 4,185 non-merge commits among 56 authors; across all history, a quarter or more of 6,790. 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.

Evidence

git shortlog -sn

last 24 months: top author more than half of 4,185 commits; bus factor 1; 56 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.

03.5

The contributor who wrote a quarter or more of this has not committed here for more than a year

adequate worth checking first

One person authored a quarter or more of 6,790 commits and has not committed here for more than a year, 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.

Evidence

last-commit-by-top-author	last commit more than a year ago, measured to the survey
git shortlog -sn	top author a quarter or more of 6,790 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.

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · adequate · ratings ↑

04.3

89 direct dependencies in a single manifest

adequate

package.json declares 89 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.

Evidence

direct-dependencies	`package.json` — 89 declared
direct-dependencies	`maxun-core/package.json` — 5 declared
direct-dependencies	`browser/package.json` — 3 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.

04.19

1% of bug fixes add or change a test

adequate

Of 870 fixes in the last 24 months, 13 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.

Evidence

fix commits touching tests

13 of 870

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.

04.20

Fixes are 50% of recent work, up from 23%

adequate

In the last two quarters 50% of commits were fixes, against 23% in the quarters before. Rising fix work usually means quality debt is coming due, and it takes time that new work would have had.

Evidence

fix share by quarter

46%, 55%, 50%, 33%, 27%, 13%, 5%, 11%

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.

04.14

2 jobs are each done by more than one library

adequate

Within a single package: CSS-in-JS: emotion, styled-components; HTTP clients: axios, node-fetch. Each duplicate is bundle size, two ways of doing the same thing in one codebase, and two upgrade paths to maintain. It is usually the residue of a migration that stopped halfway.

Evidence

package.json package.json — several libraries per job

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.

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · adequate · ratings ↑

05.6

1 Dockerfile runs the application as root

adequate

No 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.

Evidence

no-USER-instruction browser/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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

05.3

122 dependencies float, and no lockfile is committed

adequate

Dependency versions are declared as ranges and no lockfile is committed, so a build today does not necessarily produce what a build last month produced. That matters twice over in a transaction: the thing being bought cannot be reproduced exactly, and a compromised upstream release arrives without anyone choosing to take it.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

unpinned	`browser/package.json:13` — ^4.3.6
unpinned	`browser/package.json:14` — ^2.11.2
unpinned	`browser/package.json:17` — ^22.7.9
unpinned	`browser/package.json:18` — ^5.0.0
unpinned	`browser/package.json:19` — ^10.9.2

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.

05.48

8 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it

adequate

8 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.

Evidence

server/src/workflow-management/selector.ts	`server/src/workflow-management/selector.ts:297` — HTML from a variable
server/src/workflow-management/selector.ts	`server/src/workflow-management/selector.ts:298` — HTML from a variable
server/src/workflow-management/selector.ts	`server/src/workflow-management/selector.ts:600` — 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.

05.65

1 advisory against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical

adequate

The newest was published on 2026-06-25. 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: 2 records name maxun with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2025-15105, CVE-2025-15106).

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.

Evidence

CVE-2026-56767

2026-06-25: CVE-2026-56767 (high): Maxun before 0.0.42 contains a cross-tenant insecure direct object reference vulnerability in storage and webhook API handlers that allows authenticated users t

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.

Observability & Operations

06 · strong · ratings ↑

Notes that do not affect this rating

06.9

No error reporter is wired in

adequate

Nothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.

A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.

Evidence

error reporting

no error reporter initialised

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

06.18

4 of 5 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`

adequate

4 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

docker-compose.yml	`docker-compose.yml:20` — image without a version
docker-compose.yml	`docker-compose.yml:36` — image without a version
docker-compose.yml	`docker-compose.yml:67` — 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.

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

6 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. See the tiers.

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 287 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it? Answer lives in: The team01.38
Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product? Answer lives in: Your architects, with the product roadmap01.39
Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now? Answer lives in: The team's reasoning at the time01.40

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. Answer lives in: The code host's pull request data02.32
Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic? Answer lives in: The issue tracker: backlog, sprint history, estimate accuracy02.38
How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from? Answer lives in: Tickets, chat and postmortems02.37

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · partial coverage

measured One contributor authored a quarter or more of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it? Answer lives in: The deal terms03.29
Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure? Answer lives in: The team; review history only suggests candidates03.28
Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors? Answer lives in: Recruiting data and the org chart03.30
Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands? Answer lives in: HR data03.31
Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time. Answer lives in: Interviews and on-call history03.14
Does the team want to stay after close? Answer lives in: Interviews03.32
How are decisions made and disagreements resolved? Answer lives in: Time with the team03.33

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · minimal coverage

measured 1,263 commits landed in the last year, against 2,895 the year before (-56%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three. Answer lives in: The team04.11
Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline? Answer lives in: The data room and the team's record of estimates04.32
Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it? Answer lives in: Budget and roadmap decisions04.31
Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story? Answer lives in: Revenue, customer and churn data04.33

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? Answer lives in: The security owner05.43
What has actually broken, how often, and how badly? Answer lives in: Ticketing and chat05.41
What did external testing find, and was it fixed? Answer lives in: Reports in the data room05.42
What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence? Answer lives in: Audit reports; policy files in the tree are not evidence05.44

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? Answer lives in: The operations team06.19
measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire? Answer lives in: The alerting tool and the on-call rota06.10
Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered? Answer lives in: Pager history and dashboard logs06.29
Are the service-level objectives actually met? Answer lives in: Production metrics06.30
Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off? Answer lives in: Pager exports and interviews06.31
What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there? Answer lives in: Cloud billing and capacity plans06.32

Fit with the Acquirer

07 · none coverage

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.

This is primarily a TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in src/, server/, maxun-core/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile.backend and 3 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first? 07.2
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? Answer lives in: Your architecture07.11
What will integration cost, and in what order? Answer lives in: The engagement07.12
Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom? Answer lives in: Your org design07.13
Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign? Answer lives in: Deal terms07.14
Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors? Answer lives in: Customer contracts07.15

Request a human assessment Download JSON Badge PDF

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.

[![Borehole](/badge/getmaxun/maxun.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/getmaxun/maxun/8f2ab6b)

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 — 88 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 88 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 — 65

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 592 · top5 share 0.144
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 7 · per kloc 0.08 · lines read 92,057
04.test_growth	test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.019 · early test per code 0.028
04.churn_trend	rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.472 · early delete per insert 0.532
04.eol_runtime	every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24
04.compat_layers	little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.09 · code files 233 · compat files 21
06.telemetry_presence	a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 1
06.structured_logging	a structured logging library is referencedmatches 2
06.healthcheck_presence	a health or readiness check is defined
06.telemetry_depth	the service is visible in more than one way
06.correlation_ids	a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 3
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 1
06.release_markers	releases are markedtags last year 24 · release commits 1 · changelog commits 0
06.migrate_on_start	migrations do not run at container start
06.feature_flags	a feature-flag service is configured and usedsdk files 1 · evaluation sites 1
03.active_contributors	more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 56 · active 12mo 38
03.knowledge_silos	every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 56 · directories 4
03.drive_by_contributors	an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 56 · one off share 0.357
03.critical_path_ownership	more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 56
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 7 · joined 14 · regular last year 17
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 867 · window last 24 months · with tracked 5
02.release_cadence	tags are presenttags 49
02.conventional_commits	commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 6,790 · low content share 0.086
02.revert_share	change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 5 · recent commits 4,123
02.flaky_test_markers	tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0
02.long_lived_branches	the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.01 · merges 673 · long lived 7
02.commit_size	changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.002 · commits 3,597 · over 2000 lines 8
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 itlargest commits 558fe67..0b924be · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 3,223
01.initial_dump	first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 0 · share of insertions 0.0
01.message_uniformity	commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 14.81 · repeat share 0.251
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 250 · write once share 0.228
01.duplicated_blocks	little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0234 · product files 233 · distinct blocks 57,689
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 271
05.security_guardrails	at least one standard guard rail is configured
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 189,061
05.secrets_management_pattern	no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0
05.migration_reversibility	migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 5 · irreversible 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.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 AGPL-3.0license AGPL-3.0
05.license_vendored_unlicensed	no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0
05.license_grant_unclear	the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0
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 1
04.dependency_churn	few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 191 · added in two years 52 · removed within 60 days 9
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	no release carried a different root licence; 1 change no release contained set asidelicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 1
05.paid_edition	no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0
04.releases_stopped	releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 16.0 · days since last tag 22 · commits last 90 days 485
04.release_branch	the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 1 · on branch 47 · tags in window 48
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.probes_identical	no Kubernetes probes
06.single_replica	no Kubernetes deployments
02.ci_runs_tests	no CI configuration to read
02.skipped_tests	too few test files to judge how many are switched off
02.ci_test_gating	no CI configuration to read
02.dependency_update_cadence	no lockfile to date
02.lint_in_build	too small, or no CI to wire a linter into (02.2)
01.notebook_outputs	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.supply_chain_pinning	no CI actions or pipe-to-shell installs to check
05.outbound_timeouts	not assessed for TypeScript or TSX, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
05.resource_limits	no Kubernetes workload manifests
05.known_vulnerabilities	no lockfile this survey can read, or a collector older than 0.4.0
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	one API version is served, or none
04.ci_platforms_dropped	no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years
05.project_advisories	record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 2 records name maxun with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2025-15105, CVE-2025-15106)
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 M00K-DVG7-98ZV 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.

[![Borehole reading, not a certification](https://borehole.dev/badge/getmaxun/maxun/8f2ab6b.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/M00KDVG798ZV?via=badge)

Quoted evidence

5 pieces of evidence on this report quote the repository directly. Four checks quote text: up to five TODO-style comments, up to four commit subjects, up to five unpinned dependency lines and one status line from the README's first screen, such as “no longer maintained”. In each case the text is the evidence, which is why it is kept by default.

This rewrites every stored reading of this repository, and every later reading, including a re-read, is stored without the quoted text. The facts we keep to re-read it still hold the lines, as the privacy notice says. The pointers stay.

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: 7.8authenticated: False
2.6s	cloned the repository to a temporary directory	depth: full
4.9s	read the git history	commits: 7733tracked files: 294
44.6s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Trueread working tree: False
44.7s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
63.3s	kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
63.3s	deleting the working copy

Total 63.3s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended

An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).

BOREHOLE 0.7.15 DETERMINISTIC LAYER · NO MODEL CALLSREAD ON BOREHOLE'S SERVER · CLONE DELETED TAKEDOWNCONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPOSITORY? YOUR RIGHTS