d5bf95c · 25,346 commits · 9,124 files
Issued 2026-10-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity.
103 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.
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions CONTRIBUTING.md:5
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.
- 05.26 29 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 23 high or critical in what ships
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 1 credential-shaped match is 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 | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 26% 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 ↑resources/views/partials/bootstrap-table.blade.php is 4,521 lines, 137× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 33 lines. 28 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,521. 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 | resources/views/partials/bootstrap-table.blade.php:1 — 4,521 lines (137× median) |
| line-count | app/Models/Asset.php:1 — 2,393 lines (72× median) |
| line-count | app/Helpers/Helper.php:1 — 2,327 lines (70× median) |
| line-count | app/Http/Controllers/SettingsController.php:1 — 2,246 lines (68× median) |
| line-count | app/Models/User.php:1 — 2,206 lines (66× 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
adequate707 test files against 8,714 source files (8.1%). 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.
| test-file-ratio | 707 test files / 8,714 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 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 6,969 non-merge commits among 88 authors; across all history, more than half of 18,729. In a project with 88 recent contributors and 11 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 6,969 commits; bus factor 1; 88 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 ↑Node.js 18 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 18 (end of life 2025-04-30). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2025-04-30. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .nvmrc | .nvmrc — Node.js 18, end of life 2025-04-30 |
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 ↑1 credential-shaped string 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.
| Google API key | Google API key, 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.
29 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 23 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first29 of 644 locked dependencies match 82 published advisories in OSV, 35 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.
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 composer.lock and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| composer.lock | composer.lock — mtdowling/jmespath.php 2.8.0: GHSA-pcw8-m77r-2528 (critical), fixed in 2.9.1; the advisory applies only under a condition it states |
| package-lock.json | package-lock.json — jspdf 4.0.0: GHSA-wfv2-pwc8-crg5 (critical), fixed in 4.2.1 |
| package-lock.json | package-lock.json — shell-quote 1.8.1: GHSA-w7jw-789q-3m8p (critical), fixed in 1.8.4 |
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.
3 environment files are committed
adequate.env.docker, .env.tests, .env.unit-tests are tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .env.docker | .env.docker — committed environment file |
| .env.tests | .env.tests — committed environment file |
| .env.unit-tests | .env.unit-tests — committed environment 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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate5 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.
| .github/workflows/crowdin-upload.yml | .github/workflows/crowdin-upload.yml:17 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/docker-alpine.yml | .github/workflows/docker-alpine.yml:67 — 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.
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 deserialisers that can run code
adequate2 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (pickle, `yaml.load` without a safe loader, object streams, `unserialize`). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. 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.
| app/Http/Transformers/ActionlogsTransformer.php | app/Http/Transformers/ActionlogsTransformer.php:145 — code-executing deserialiser |
| app/Http/Transformers/ActionlogsTransformer.php | app/Http/Transformers/ActionlogsTransformer.php:146 — code-executing deserialiser |
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 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.
| public/vendor/livewire | public/vendor/livewire — 12 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.
87 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 25 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-09. 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 1 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 8.7.2. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 3 records name snipe-it with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2022-1380, CVE-2022-23064, CVE-2024-51094).
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.
| CVE-2026-86762 | 2026-09-09: CVE-2026-86762 (high): Snipe-IT before 8.7.0 does not apply the CheckUserIsActivated middleware to the `api` middleware group in app/Http/Kernel.php, and deactivating a user does not |
| GHSA-g7jx-p4xf-m777 | 2026-08-26: GHSA-g7jx-p4xf-m777 (moderate), fixed in 8.7.2: Predefined kit checkout bypasses FMCS company isolation |
| GHSA-x53f-48vj-c5fc | 2026-08-24: GHSA-x53f-48vj-c5fc (high), fixed in 8.7.0: Authenticated remote code execution through MariaDB client commands in backup restore |
| GHSA-4vcv-fc5x-jjwv | 2026-08-24: GHSA-4vcv-fc5x-jjwv (moderate), fixed in 8.7.1: Resource-Exhaustion DoS via Unbounded Acceptance Note Reaching Synchronous CommonMark Rendering |
| GHSA-5j6m-rr83-rpj7 | 2026-08-24: GHSA-5j6m-rr83-rpj7 (moderate), fixed in 8.7.0: IPv6 transition address bypass of webhook URL SSRF guard |
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 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
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.
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 8,295 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 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 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.
- 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 PHP codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run PHP in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in resources/, public/, app/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 5 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/grokability/snipe-it/d5bf95c)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 — 73
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 27,690 · top5 share 0.018 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 100 · per kloc 0.14 · lines read 720,088 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.133 · early test per code 0.028 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.638 · early delete per insert 0.582 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,334 · share 0.262 · with tests 349 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 8,055 · compat files 0 |
| 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 2 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 1 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 13 |
| 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 2 · floating 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 2 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 16 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 54 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 385 · active 12mo 51 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 385 · directories 8 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 385 · one off share 0.584 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 385 · 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 88 |
| 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 11 · joined 7 · regular last year 14 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 2,720 · window last 24 months · with tracked 587 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 11 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 305 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 18,796 · low content share 0.054 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 11 · with tests 3 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 709 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 11 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 18 · recent commits 6,969 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 190 · days since lockfile changed 13 |
| 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 1 · ci configs 11 · product files 8,055 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.068 · merges 615 · long lived 42 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.007 · commits 6,720 · over 2000 lines 47 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was vendored dependencies (89% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays itlargest commits a160da6..c50b81f · bursts explained 6 · largest net added 44,409 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 577,913 · share of insertions 0.1431 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.81 · repeat share 0.159 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 8,185 · write once share 0.12 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 728,753 · files 2 · 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.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.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 · 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 53 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on AGPL-3.0license AGPL-3.0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 1 · files with deprecations 7 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 231 · added in two years 30 · removed within 60 days 4 |
| 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 17.0 · days since last tag -4 · commits last 90 days 1,855 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release, v8.8.0, was made after the surveyed commit on the branch surveyedelsewhere 3 · on branch 230 · tags in window 234 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 18
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for PHP: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for PHP, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 3 records name snipe-it with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2022-1380, CVE-2022-23064, CVE-2024-51094) |
| 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 NSKF-J2DY-ZJTK 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/NSKFJ2DYZJTK?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 | 15 | adequate |
8 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 16 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 16 | 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 |
| 42.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 69.8s | read the git history | commits: 25346tracked files: 9124 |
| 429.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 429.1s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 642.4s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 642.4s | deleting the working copy |
Total 642.4s ·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).