4617300 · 50,000 commits · 14,385 files
Issued 2026-09-26
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance, Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity.
91 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 4 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
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
- 1 finding rated significant by a check that has not yet held up in Borehole's calibration is now worth checking first.
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 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 | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 4% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- 33% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers
- 49% of commits are merges; squash-merge workflows discard the trailers of the commits they collapse
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑drivers/alsa/asound-so_wrap.c is 14,005 lines, 99× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 141 lines. 234 files exceed 1,410 lines, the largest being 14,005. 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.
| line-count | drivers/alsa/asound-so_wrap.c:1 — 14,005 lines (99× median) |
| line-count | servers/rendering/shader_language.cpp:1 — 12,329 lines (87× median) |
| line-count | servers/rendering/rendering_device.cpp:1 — 10,542 lines (74× median) |
| line-count | scene/gui/text_edit.cpp:1 — 10,162 lines (72× median) |
| line-count | editor/animation/animation_track_editor.cpp:1 — 10,057 lines (71× 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 ↑Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase
adequate worth checking first4 test files against 627 source files (0.6%). 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.
| test-file-ratio | 4 test files / 627 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.
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. 9 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑4% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 3180 fixes in the last 24 months, 138 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 | 138 of 3180 |
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 ↑49 vendored components with no licence
adequateThird-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.
| modules/mono/thirdparty/libSystem.Security.Cryptography.Native.Android.jar | modules/mono/thirdparty/libSystem.Security.Cryptography.Native.Android.jar — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| modules/mono/thirdparty/libSystem.Security.Cryptography.Native.Android.jar.source.txt | modules/mono/thirdparty/libSystem.Security.Cryptography.Native.Android.jar.source.txt — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| modules/mono/thirdparty/mono_delegates.h | modules/mono/thirdparty/mono_delegates.h — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| modules/mono/thirdparty/mono_types.h | modules/mono/thirdparty/mono_types.h — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| thirdparty/certs | thirdparty/certs — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| thirdparty/clipper2 | thirdparty/clipper2 — 13 tracked files, no licence file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 15 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
1 check 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 11,559 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 2,349 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 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- 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- 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 C codebase, with C++ alongside (33% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run C in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in editor/, thirdparty/, modules/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- 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/godotengine/godot/4617300)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 — 87 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 87 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 — 48
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few files, in the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026)files 22,953 · top5 share 0.018 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 1,043 · per kloc 0.51 · lines read 2,047,751 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026) · late test per code 0.059 · early test per code 0.047 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026) · late delete per insert 0.521 · early delete per insert 0.672 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.004 · code files 559 · compat files 2 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 4,646 |
| 06.structured_logging | not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthswindow last 24 months · authors 2,349 · top share less than a quarter |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 1,117 |
| 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 73 · joined 92 · regular last year 179 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 9,339 · window last 24 months · with tracked 151 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 9 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026)sampled 25,467 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026) · low content share 0.0 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 1,736 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 9 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.006 · reverts 58 · recent commits 9,462 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 152 · days since lockfile changed 17 |
| 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 0.24 · merges 9,326 · long lived 2,238 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.008 · commits 8,863 · over 2000 lines 67 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was a branch merged by a merge commit, developed on its own branch and landed in one piece (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays it, in the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026) · largest commits 92503ae..d78e0a8 · bursts explained 1 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026) · length stdev 24.62 · repeat share 0.01 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0148 · product files 4,084 · distinct blocks 1,073,485 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 2,052,383 · files 8 · per kloc 0.01 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | Java to Kotlin: the new language's share has not risen steadily, so the two are deliberate layers, not a migrationmigration Java to Kotlin · new share now 0.24 · new share at start 0.0 |
| 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 7 · files read 4,646 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 1 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | plain HTTP is not allowed app-widesites 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 4,888 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 3 · files with deprecations 19 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 19 · added in two years 0 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 39
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (12 Aug 2021 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | no CI actions or pipe-to-shell installs to check |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no lockfile this survey can read, or a collector older than 0.4.0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | no licence file at the repository root |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 1991-BGMM-MA2K at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 94 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/1991BGMMMA2K?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-26 · shown | borehole 0.6.2 | 7 | adequate |
15 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 5 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 5 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 5 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 5 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 5 | strong |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 6 | adequate |
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: 1846.6authenticated: False |
| 112.8s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: 20,000 commits |
| 262.9s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 14385 |
| 505.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 505.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 690.5s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 690.5s | deleting the working copy |
Total 690.5s ·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).