8bac4de · 9,982 commits · 2,600 files
Issued 2026-10-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Observability & Operations, Organization & Key-Person Risk.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 2 raised something worth a question. 8 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions CONTRIBUTING.md:84
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 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 | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | strong | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 10% 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
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑livereload/livereload.js is 3,796 lines, 26× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 144 lines. 5 files exceed 1,440 lines, the largest being 3,796. 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 | livereload/livereload.js:1 — 3,796 lines (26× median) |
| line-count | internal/warpc/deps/parson/parson.c:1 — 2,487 lines (17× median) |
| line-count | tpl/tplimpl/templatestore.go:1 — 2,268 lines (15× median) |
| line-count | hugolib/site.go:1 — 1,794 lines (12× median) |
| line-count | hugolib/content_map_page_assembler.go:1 — 1,499 lines (10× 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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 1,108 non-merge commits among 77 authors; across all history, more than half of 9,097. In a project with 77 recent contributors and 13 years of history, that is a question about one person's role rather than a fragile team — but it is the question to ask.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 1,108 commits; bus factor 1; 77 authors |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑13 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate13 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Mar 2019. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| resources/page/page.go | resources/page/page.go — deprecated since Mar 2019 |
| tpl/internal/go_templates/texttemplate/parse/node.go | tpl/internal/go_templates/texttemplate/parse/node.go — deprecated since Dec 2019 |
| source/fileInfo.go | source/fileInfo.go — deprecated since Mar 2022 |
| resources/page/pages_related.go | resources/page/pages_related.go — deprecated since Feb 2023 |
| config/allconfig/allconfig.go | config/allconfig/allconfig.go — deprecated since May 2023 |
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 · strong · ratings ↑1 vendored component with no licence
adequateThird-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| internal/warpc/genwebp/deps/clib | internal/warpc/genwebp/deps/clib — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
30 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 8 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-28. 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 12 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 0.166.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 2 records name hugo with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2024-33686, CVE-2026-51785).
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-3jfr-vjcq-7jvf | 2026-09-28: GHSA-3jfr-vjcq-7jvf (moderate), fixed in v0.167.0: css.Sass allowed themes to read files outside the project via the Sass compiler's import fallback |
| GHSA-r4xx-89rf-5424 | 2026-09-28: GHSA-r4xx-89rf-5424 (moderate), fixed in v0.167.0: js.Build allowed themes to read files outside the project via ESBuild's fallback resolver |
| GHSA-6c8w-mpp8-9w47 | 2026-09-28: GHSA-6c8w-mpp8-9w47 (moderate), fixed in v0.167.0: Symlink in nested-mount ancestor directory of a theme exposes files outside the module |
| GHSA-wcpj-vcvm-j4pg | 2026-09-28: GHSA-wcpj-vcvm-j4pg (moderate), fixed in v0.167.0: Stored XSS via unescaped heading ID in Table of Contents HTML |
| CVE-2026-100690 | 2026-09-26: CVE-2026-100690 (high): Hugo versions from v0.161.0 through v0.165.0 run Node.js tools (css.PostCSS, css.TailwindCSS, js.Babel) under the Node.js permission model to restrict file syst |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| logging-scan | searched 2,220 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
One request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.
| request ids | no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
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.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing 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.
| 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.
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
4 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 738 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 One contributor authored more than half of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Go codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in hugolib/, tpl/, resources/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/gohugoio/hugo/8bac4de)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 — 95 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 95 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 — 73
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 11,281 · top5 share 0.05 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 108 · per kloc 0.34 · lines read 317,984 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.773 · early test per code 0.569 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.559 · early delete per insert 0.508 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 210 · share 0.771 · with tests 162 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.002 · code files 544 · compat files 1 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 1 |
| 06.print_logging | raw prints are few, or outnumbered by logger callsprints 21 · logger calls 38 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 43 · release commits 2 · changelog commits 15 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 901 · active 12mo 37 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 901 · one off share 0.729 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 901 · top share more than half · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 77 |
| 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 4 · joined 3 · regular last year 6 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 22 · window last 24 months · with tracked 510 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 7 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 392 · source 926 · test ratio 0.423 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 383 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 9,746 · low content share 0.004 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 7 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 581 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 7 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.007 · reverts 8 · recent commits 1,108 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 4 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 3 · ci configs 7 · product files 544 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.021 · commits 919 · over 2000 lines 19 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 4 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 17.79 · repeat share 0.073 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 683 · write once share 0.161 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0046 · product files 535 · distinct blocks 83,803 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 320,168 · files 2 · per kloc 0.03 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 6 |
| 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 2,220 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | dependencies are substantially pinnedunpinned 4 |
| 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 954,065 |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 24 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 1 |
| 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.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no locked dependency has a published advisoryadvisories 0 · dependencies 179 · high or critical 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.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 6 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 313 · added in two years 51 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 14.0 · days since last tag -3 · commits last 90 days 169 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release, v0.167.0, was made after the surveyed commit on the branch surveyedelsewhere 18 · on branch 364 · tags in window 383 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 22
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 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 | none at all is 06.1 |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 2 records name hugo with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2024-33686, CVE-2026-51785) |
| 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 SYFW-CEHH-2VTA 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/SYFWCEHH2VTA?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-03 · shown | borehole 0.7.11 | 11 | adequate |
12 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.4 | 10 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 10 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 10 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 12 | 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 | authenticated: False |
| 9.8s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 19.8s | read the git history | commits: 9982tracked files: 2600 |
| 104.3s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 104.3s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 159.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 159.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 159.0s ·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).