23cd7ae · 7,741 commits · 7,868 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing proven significant. 1 finding is worth checking first.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 12 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 3 November 2026.
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions AGENTS.md:20
- 1 submodule(s) this survey does not read: pkg/validator/data/disposable-email-domains .gitmodules:1
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here may be significant, and 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.
- 05.45 1 workload setting give a container the host
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 8 credential-shaped matches are withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 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 |
- 98% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- 24% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑pkg/server/api/mcp/v1/schema.resolvers.go is 11,677 lines, 122× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 95 lines. 72 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 11,677. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | pkg/server/api/mcp/v1/schema.resolvers.go:1 — 11,677 lines (122× median) |
| line-count | pkg/probo/generated_document_service.go:1 — 5,025 lines (52× median) |
| line-count | pkg/cookiebanner/service.go:1 — 4,685 lines (49× median) |
| line-count | pkg/probo/document_service.go:1 — 3,754 lines (39× median) |
| line-count | pkg/automerge/internal/testsupport/reference/wasm/src/lib.rs:1 — 2,586 lines (27× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · adequate · ratings ↑5% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate331 of 6082 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| git log --numstat | 331 commits over 2,000 lines |
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.
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 ↑15% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 1399 fixes in the last 24 months, 205 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| fix commits touching tests | 205 of 1399 |
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 credential-shaped strings in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings
adequateStrings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key.
| Slack token | 2 cited: Slack token, where fakes are usual |
| JWT | 2 cited: JWT, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
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 workload setting give a container the host
adequate worth checking first1 places in the deployment configuration run a container privileged or in the host's network, process or IPC namespace. A compromise of that container is a compromise of the machine, and most acquirers' security reviews block it. Node agents (network, storage, monitoring) are excluded.
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. Opening contrib/helm/charts/probo/values.yaml:41 settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| contrib/helm/charts/probo/values.yaml | contrib/helm/charts/probo/values.yaml:41 — privileged or host namespace |
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 credential-shaped strings added in the history sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings
adequateStrings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key. 1 other match set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| history | 3 cited: Slack token, where fakes are usual |
| history | JWT, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
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
adequate14 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; 7 steps pipe a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/automerge-battery.yaml | .github/workflows/automerge-battery.yaml:18 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/make.yaml | .github/workflows/make.yaml:167 — action pinned by tag |
| cmd/probo-agent/installer/install.sh | cmd/probo-agent/installer/install.sh:13 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
2 shell commands built from strings
adequate2 places run a command through a shell (`shell=True`, `os.system`, `exec` with a template) rather than passing arguments. Where any part comes from outside, it is command injection. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| pkg/cmd/auth/login/login.go | pkg/cmd/auth/login/login.go:558 — command run through a shell |
| pkg/cmd/browse/browse.go | pkg/cmd/browse/browse.go:112 — 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 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 1 high or critical
adequate2 of 1,065 locked dependencies match 3 published advisories in OSV, 1 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. None of the high or critical ones is in what the product ships: only the build reaches them: a bundler, a code generator, a build plugin, or a lockfile in a tooling directory.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| package-lock.json | package-lock.json — zod 3.25.76: GHSA-mrhx-c7xc-m3w5 (high), fixed in 4.6.6; reached only by the build |
| go.mod | go.mod — golang.org/x/net v0.61.0: GO-2026-6860 (unrated), fixed in 0.62.0 |
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.
7 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate7 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.
| packages/cookie-banner/src/activation.ts | packages/cookie-banner/src/activation.ts:193 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/cookie-banner/src/components/settings-link.ts | packages/cookie-banner/src/components/settings-link.ts:115 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/cookie-banner/src/themed-banner/themed-banner.ts | packages/cookie-banner/src/themed-banner/themed-banner.ts:95 — 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.
11 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-08-18. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 11 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 0.216.1. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
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-4jp4-hf8m-xxhv | 2026-08-18: GHSA-4jp4-hf8m-xxhv (high), fixed in 0.261.1: OAuth2 consent bypass via unverified compliance-portal custom domain |
| GHSA-jq76-r8vw-9w36 | 2026-08-18: GHSA-jq76-r8vw-9w36 (moderate), fixed in 0.261.1: IsPublicIP SSRF guard missing IPv6 transition address checks allows agent tool SSRF via NAT64/6to4/Teredo |
| GHSA-9fx8-47w4-3vw8 | 2026-08-18: GHSA-9fx8-47w4-3vw8 (moderate), fixed in 0.257.0: Stored XSS in the console via unsanitized Markdown (iframe srcdoc) in Organization Context; no CSP on the console app |
| GHSA-p6m2-fv55-v5wp | 2026-08-06: GHSA-p6m2-fv55-v5wp (moderate), fixed in 0.250.0: Open redirect bypass via path normalization: ASCII TAB survives path.Clean and collapses to a protocol-relative URL in browsers |
| GHSA-r9mf-88r7-g6j9 | 2026-08-06: GHSA-r9mf-88r7-g6j9 (high), fixed in 0.234.0: Account takeover via OIDC login: the continue redirect hands the victim's root-session token to any unverified custom domain |
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 ↑Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 3 of 3 workloads
adequateBoth probes call the same endpoint. When a dependency slows down, the liveness probe fails with the readiness probe, so the platform restarts pods that only needed taking out of rotation, and a partial outage becomes a full one. Liveness should ask whether the process is alive; readiness whether it can serve.
| contrib/helm/charts/probo/templates/chrome.yaml | contrib/helm/charts/probo/templates/chrome.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| contrib/helm/charts/probo/templates/seaweedfs.yaml | contrib/helm/charts/probo/templates/seaweedfs.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| contrib/helm/charts/probo/values.yaml | contrib/helm/charts/probo/values.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
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
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.
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 6,379 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- 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 44 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- 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 TypeScript codebase, with Go alongside (47% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in pkg/, apps/, packages/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 41 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/getprobo/probo/23cd7ae)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 — 92 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 92 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 — 76
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 15,613 · top5 share 0.024 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 109 · per kloc 0.08 · lines read 1,302,437 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.249 · early test per code 0.051 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.636 · early delete per insert 0.487 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 8 · columns added last year 277 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 5,682 · compat files 2 |
| 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 81 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 1 |
| 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 27 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 1 · config files 0 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 1 · floating 0 |
| 06.single_replica | an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 4 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 717 · release commits 716 · changelog commits 975 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 1.8 · window last 24 months · authors 44 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 44 · active 12mo 35 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 44 · directories 8 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | a healthy share of contributors committed more than onceshare 0.432 · authors 44 · one commit authors 19 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 44 · top share a quarter or more · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 44 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 1 · joined 10 · regular last year 16 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 34 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 21 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,188 · source 6,811 · test ratio 0.174 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 860 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 7,736 · low content share 0.039 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 21 · with tests 3 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 1,352 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 21 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 5 · recent commits 7,666 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 5 · commits since 0 · 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 16 · ci configs 21 · product files 5,682 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 39 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 15.86 · repeat share 0.081 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 5,912 · write once share 0.215 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.019 · product files 5,623 · distinct blocks 471,676 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,310,001 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 1 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | every shipped Dockerfile drops to a non-root user or builds on a non-root base imagedockerfiles 1 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 0 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 1 |
| 05.resource_limits | every workload declares limitsworkloads 4 · without limits 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 87 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 53 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 53 · stated in headers or notices 53 |
| 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.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 2,139 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 1 · on branch 344 · tags in window 345 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 16
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.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 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.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | the history scanned covers 16 months, less than the 18 this question needs |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | the history scanned covers 16 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.dependency_churn | the history scanned covers 16 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | the history scanned covers 16 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm @probo/cookie-banner (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @probo/n8n-nodes-probo (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @probo/skills (an empty record for a package published here) did not |
| 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 MKPV-379R-KWGV 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/MKPV379RKWGV?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: 96.2authenticated: False |
| 20.9s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 46.5s | read the git history | commits: 7741tracked files: 7868 |
| 412.7s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 412.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 650.8s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 650.8s | deleting the working copy |
Total 650.8s ·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).