Borehole · Risk register · free tier

grafana/loki

Free reading: not for reliance

bd029bc · 13,777 commits · 17,362 files
Issued 2026-10-22

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

104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 13 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.

What the repository says about itself

04.60 The repository says it is feature-complete, in maintenance mode, or needs maintainers README.md:27
04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
05.60 Relicensed: Apache-2.0 → AGPL-3.0 (2021-04-20) LICENSE
names CNCF README.md:78
1 submodule(s) this survey does not read: operator/website/themes/doks .gitmodules:1

What this survey read. This commit may not be the product users run: The newest release, v3.7.9, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v2.1.0. Read this report as describing that commit, not the release users run. Survey the release branch or tag as well.

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	strong
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

strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository

Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating

1% of added lines arrived in commits declaring an AI agent as co-author

The surviving-lines measurement was not run on this repository.

6% of lines added in the last 12 months (since 2025-10-22) arrived in AI-declared commits: 82/3,317 commits, confidence moderate. Also a floor.

86/13,675 commits declaring an agent · Claude, Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) and 13 more

confidence: moderate

49% 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

24,309,929 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 ↑

A note that does not affect this rating

01.6

pkg/logql/syntax/ast.go is 2,919 lines, 20× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 142 lines. 11 files exceed 1,420 lines, the largest being 2,919. 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	`pkg/logql/syntax/ast.go:1` — 2,919 lines (20× median)
line-count	`pkg/loki/modules.go:1` — 2,621 lines (18× median)
line-count	`pkg/querier/queryrange/codec.go:1` — 2,582 lines (18× median)
line-count	`pkg/storage/stores/shipper/indexshipper/tsdb/index/index.go:1` — 2,524 lines (17× median)
line-count	`pkg/distributor/distributor.go:1` — 2,015 lines (14× 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 · 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 ↑

04.3

135 direct dependencies in a single manifest

adequate

go.mod declares 135 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	`go.mod` — 135 declared
direct-dependencies	`operator/go.mod` — 24 declared
direct-dependencies	`operator/api/loki/go.mod` — 5 declared
direct-dependencies	`pkg/push/go.mod` — 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.

04.60

The repository says it is feature-complete, in maintenance mode, or needs maintainers

adequate

Its own README says so on line 27: "…n the stack, because Promtail is considered to be feature complete, and future development for logs collection will be ". New features are not planned, or the project is asking for maintainers. Ask who will carry it forward.

Evidence

README.md README.md:27 — …n the stack, because Promtail is considered to be feature complete, and future development for logs collection will be

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

04.62

Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

adequate

The newest release, v3.7.9, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v2.1.0. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.

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

Evidence

d3b4a2f76

tag v3.7.9

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

8 Dockerfiles run 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	`clients/cmd/docker-driver/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`clients/cmd/fluent-bit/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`cmd/logcli/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`cmd/logql-analyzer/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

05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

3 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. 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.

Evidence

.github/workflows/deploy-pr-preview.yml	`.github/workflows/deploy-pr-preview.yml:17` — action pinned by tag
.github/workflows/helm-ci.yml	`.github/workflows/helm-ci.yml:23` — action pinned by tag

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.

05.13

4 outbound calls can wait forever

adequate

4 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.

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

Evidence

pkg/lokifrontend/frontend/v2/frontend.go	`pkg/lokifrontend/frontend/v2/frontend.go:248` — outbound call without a timeout
pkg/lokifrontend/frontend/v2/frontend.go	`pkg/lokifrontend/frontend/v2/frontend.go:324` — outbound call without a timeout
pkg/lokifrontend/frontend/v2/frontend.go	`pkg/lokifrontend/frontend/v2/frontend.go:368` — outbound call without a timeout

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.

05.9

2 vendored components with no licence

adequate

Third-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.

Evidence

.github/vendor/workflows	`.github/vendor/workflows` — 1 tracked files, no licence file
operator/website/node_modules	`operator/website/node_modules` — 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.

05.60

Relicensed: Apache-2.0 → AGPL-3.0 (2021-04-20)

adequate

The root licence changed 1 time(s). The latest terms restrict what users, hosts or a buyer may do in ways the earlier ones did not. Code taken under the old terms stays under them, so both matter in diligence.

A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".

Evidence

059d7d856	`LICENSE` — Apache-2.0 from 2018-12-11
a9d85de4a	`LICENSE` — AGPL-3.0 from 2021-04-20

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

4 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical

adequate

The newest was published on 2026-10-15. 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 4 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 2.1.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 1 record names loki with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2005-1943).

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-2026-9703	2026-10-15: CVE-2026-9703 (high): Grafana's data source proxy did not apply role-based access control to write requests forwarded to Loki data sources. A user holding only the Viewer role on an
CVE-2026-21729	2026-07-16: CVE-2026-21729 (high): Loki queries with large limits can cause large memory allocations which can impact the availability of the service, depending on its deployment strategy.
CVE-2026-42129	2026-06-22: CVE-2026-42129 (high): A user with Viewer permissions can use a path traversal in the Loki data source plugin to reach administrative Loki endpoints and read sensitive backend configu
GHSA-497x-rrr9-68jp	2026-04-15: GHSA-497x-rrr9-68jp (moderate), fixed in 3.6.4: Grafana Loki Path Traversal - CVE-2021-36156 Bypass

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 · adequate · ratings ↑

06.14

Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 1 of 2 workloads

adequate

Both 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.

Evidence

production/helm/loki/values.yaml production/helm/loki/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.

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

6 of 10 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`

adequate

6 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

operator/bundle/openshift/manifests/loki-operator.clusterserviceversion.yaml	`operator/bundle/openshift/manifests/loki-operator.clusterserviceversion.yaml:2098` — image without a version
operator/bundle/openshift/manifests/loki-operator.clusterserviceversion.yaml	`operator/bundle/openshift/manifests/loki-operator.clusterserviceversion.yaml:2100` — image without a version
operator/bundle/openshift/manifests/loki-operator.clusterserviceversion.yaml	`operator/bundle/openshift/manifests/loki-operator.clusterserviceversion.yaml:2102` — 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

8 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 The tree carries design documentation (docs/sources/get-started/architecture.md and 6 more). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code. Answer lives in: The team01.38
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? Answer lives in: The team and the submodule owners01.35
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 1,303 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing? 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

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 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. Answer lives in: The provider's console and audit log05.38
measured A threat model is in the tree (vendor/github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4/threat_model.md). Does it name the assets this code actually handles, and is it current against the deployment? 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 Alert rules are defined in the repository. 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 Go codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in vendor/, pkg/, operator/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
The repository carries deployment configuration (clients/cmd/docker-driver/Dockerfile and 239 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/grafana/loki.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/grafana/loki/bd029bc)

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 — 91 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 91 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 — 72

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 37,669 · top5 share 0.016
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 569 · per kloc 0.48 · lines read 1,192,545
04.test_growth	test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.958 · early test per code 0.727
04.churn_trend	rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.568 · early delete per insert 0.414
04.eol_runtime	every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24
04.fixes_with_tests	fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,018 · share 0.492 · with tests 501
04.fix_share_trend	fixing is not crowding out building
04.compat_layers	little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.003 · code files 12,693 · compat files 40
06.telemetry_presence	a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 149
06.structured_logging	a structured logging library is referencedmatches 13
06.healthcheck_presence	a health or readiness check is defined
06.telemetry_depth	the service is visible in more than one way
06.print_logging	raw prints are few, or outnumbered by logger callsprints 27 · logger calls 74
06.correlation_ids	a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 27
06.usage_reporting_default	reporting is off until someone turns it onsettings on 0 · settings off 2
06.alert_rules	alert rules are defined as codealert files 21
06.single_replica	an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 45
06.environment_branching	environment differences live in configurationsites 0
06.release_markers	releases are markedtags last year 63 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 118
06.migrate_on_start	migrations do not run at container start
03.contributor_concentration	no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 8.5 · window last 24 months · authors 1,303
03.active_contributors	more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 1,303 · active 12mo 161
03.knowledge_silos	every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 1,303 · directories 10
03.drive_by_contributors	an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 1,303 · one off share 0.701
03.contributor_attrition	no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 1,303 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed within the last three months
03.critical_path_ownership	more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 358
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 17 · joined 18 · regular last year 40
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 5
02.ci_presence	CI configuration is present in the working treecount 75
02.test_presence	tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,205 · source 2,936 · test ratio 0.41
02.release_cadence	tags are presenttags 401
02.conventional_commits	commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 13,675 · low content share 0.003
02.branch_protection_hints	process scaffolding is present in the repository
02.ci_runs_tests	CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 75 · with tests 3
02.skipped_tests	few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 1,426
02.ci_test_gating	no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 75
02.revert_share	change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 2 · recent commits 3,541
02.dependency_update_cadence	dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 1 · 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 6 · ci configs 75 · product files 12,693
02.commit_size	changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.032 · commits 3,142 · over 2000 lines 102
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 0 · share of insertions 0.0
01.message_uniformity	commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.92 · repeat share 0.002
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,286 · write once share 0.224
01.duplicated_blocks	little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0219 · product files 1,736 · distinct blocks 225,442
01.swallowed_errors	errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,196,883 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0
01.build_reproducibility	every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 26
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 4,486
05.security_guardrails	at least one standard guard rail is configured
05.dependency_pinning	dependencies are substantially pinnedunpinned 1
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.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.resource_limits	every workload declares limitsworkloads 46 · without limits 0
05.known_vulnerabilities	no locked dependency has a published advisoryadvisories 0 · dependencies 448 · 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 13,035
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
02.development_elsewhere	nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0
05.paid_edition	no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0
04.releases_stopped	releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 6.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 1,342
03.single_maintainer	no file says one person maintains itstatements 0

Could not conclude, or did not apply — 19

Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.

Signal	Why
04.schema_churn	no schema migrations to read
04.dependency_redundancy	no JavaScript manifest to read
06.feature_flags	no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere
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.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	the history scanned covers 3 months, less than the 12 this question needs
04.api_versions_coexisting	the history scanned covers 3 months, less than the 18 this question needs
04.deprecations_lingering	the history scanned covers 3 months, less than the 24 this question needs
04.dependency_churn	the history scanned covers 3 months, less than the 24 this question needs
04.ci_platforms_dropped	the history scanned covers 3 months, less than the 24 this question needs
05.project_advisories	record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV RubyGems fluent-plugin-grafana-loki (an empty record for a package published here), OSV RubyGems logstash-output-loki (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 1 record names loki with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2005-1943); 1 is fixed in the surveyed commit, and the release users run is not placed by this history
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 Z7RE-K837-CJ6H 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/grafana/loki/bd029bc.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/Z7REK837CJ6H?via=badge)

Quoted evidence

1 piece of evidence on this report quotes 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: 549.0authenticated: False
47.4s	cloned the repository to a temporary directory	depth: full
117.5s	read the git history	commits: 13777tracked files: 17362
578.5s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Falseread working tree: False
578.5s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
951.2s	kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
951.2s	deleting the working copy

Total 951.2s ·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