ea2d9cb · 50,000 commits · 4,822 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Reads strong: 4 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Product & Engineering Maturity are adequate. 1 finding is worth checking first. 14 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 2 November 2026.
This repository reads strong. Show it in your README: the badge links to a page where anyone can check the reading. 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/A0DPFW4NCS5S?via=badge)Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here may be significant, and its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 04.3 270 direct dependencies in a single manifest
- 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 | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 5% 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
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑Commit messages are templated rather than written
adequate32% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 23.9 characters. A log written by someone explaining their reasoning to a future reader does not look like this. The log is therefore weak evidence of intent, whatever the code is like. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) only; older history was not read.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| commit-subjects | 1001× 'clean code' |
| commit-subjects | 389× 'fix' |
| commit-subjects | 242× 'refactor' |
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.
apps/app/src/server/service/page/index.ts is 5,808 lines, 79× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 73 lines. 27 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 5,808. 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 | apps/app/src/server/service/page/index.ts:1 — 5,808 lines (79× median) |
| line-count | apps/app/src/server/service/page/v5.public-page.integ.ts:1 — 3,154 lines (43× median) |
| line-count | apps/app/src/server/service/page/v5.non-public-page.integ.ts:1 — 2,486 lines (34× median) |
| line-count | apps/app/src/server/models/v5.page.integ.ts:1 — 2,256 lines (30× median) |
| line-count | apps/app/src/server/service/g2g-transfer.ts:1 — 1,936 lines (26× 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 ↑Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository
adequateOf five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: CI workflows. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| process-scaffolding | 1 of 5 markers present across 4,822 tracked 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.
Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (apps/app/playwright.config.ts). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| apps/app/playwright.config.ts | apps/app/playwright.config.ts:51 — test retry |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑270 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequate worth checking firstapps/app/package.json declares 270 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.
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 apps/app/package.json and the 3 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| direct-dependencies | apps/app/package.json — 270 declared |
| direct-dependencies | apps/slackbot-proxy/package.json — 28 declared |
| direct-dependencies | apps/growi-vault-manager/package.json — 21 declared |
| direct-dependencies | apps/pdf-converter/package.json — 21 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.
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 ↑2 Dockerfiles run the application as root
adequateNo 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.
| no-USER-instruction | apps/app/docker/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | apps/growi-vault-manager/docker/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.
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 production build publishes source maps
adequateThe build configuration emits source maps for production, so the original source, with its comments and structure, is downloadable by every visitor. Upload them to an error tracker and keep them off the public server instead.
| packages/core/vite.config.ts | packages/core/vite.config.ts:22 — source maps in a production build |
| packages/editor/vite.config.ts | packages/editor/vite.config.ts:88 — source maps in a production build |
| packages/pluginkit/vite.config.ts | packages/pluginkit/vite.config.ts:24 — source maps in a production build |
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
adequateapps/app/.env.production, apps/pdf-converter/.env, apps/slackbot-proxy/.env 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.
| apps/app/.env.production | apps/app/.env.production — committed environment file |
| apps/pdf-converter/.env | apps/pdf-converter/.env — committed environment file |
| apps/slackbot-proxy/.env | apps/slackbot-proxy/.env — 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
adequate30 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/auto-approve.yml | .github/workflows/auto-approve.yml:19 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/auto-labeling.yml | .github/workflows/auto-labeling.yml:34 — 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.
1 deserialiser that can run code
adequate1 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (PHP `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.
| apps/app/src/server/service/g2g-transfer-session-invalidation.ts | apps/app/src/server/service/g2g-transfer-session-invalidation.ts:19 — 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.
178 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate178 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| apps/app/src/client/components/Admin/AdminHome/AdminHome.tsx | apps/app/src/client/components/Admin/AdminHome/AdminHome.tsx:101 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/app/src/client/components/Admin/App/AwsSetting.tsx | apps/app/src/client/components/Admin/App/AwsSetting.tsx:25 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/app/src/client/components/Admin/App/AzureSetting.tsx | apps/app/src/client/components/Admin/App/AzureSetting.tsx:101 — HTML from a variable |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
9 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-28. 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 3 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 8.0.8. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 52 records name growi with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2018-0652, CVE-2018-0653, CVE-2018-0654, …).
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-2026-105272 | 2026-10-28: CVE-2026-105272 (low): GROWI contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in its page viewing and commenting functionality due to improper use of a user-controlled key. By exploitin |
| CVE-2026-109848 | 2026-10-28: CVE-2026-109848 (low): GROWI contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in its tag update API and the page update API due to improper use of a user-controlled key. By exploiting t |
| CVE-2026-115624 | 2026-10-28: CVE-2026-115624 (moderate): GROWI contains a missing authorization check vulnerability in its collaborative editing feature. By exploiting this vulnerability, a user with read-only permiss |
| GHSA-m72c-xgjf-56ww | 2026-10-27: GHSA-m72c-xgjf-56ww (moderate), fixed in 8.0.7: A logged-in user can read the body or comments of a revision of a page they cannot view by pairing its ID with a viewable page ID |
| GHSA-pqx5-gx68-83h4 | 2026-10-27: GHSA-pqx5-gx68-83h4 (moderate), fixed in 8.0.7: A logged-in user can copy the body of any page revision into a page they can access via /_api/tags.update |
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.
The code branches on the environment's name at 19 places
adequate19 places outside configuration test whether they are running in production or staging. Staging then does not exercise production's code, and each deploy is the first run of those branches. Differences belong in configuration the code reads, not in the code.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| apps/app/src/server/crowi/index.ts | apps/app/src/server/crowi/index.ts:736 — branch on the environment name |
| apps/app/src/utils/logger/index.ts | apps/app/src/utils/logger/index.ts:7 — branch on the environment name |
| apps/app/src/utils/logger/index.ts | apps/app/src/utils/logger/index.ts:8 — branch on the environment name |
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
7 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 The tree carries design documentation (.kiro/settings/templates/specs/design.md and 52 more). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- 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 127 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured A roadmap file is in the tree (.kiro/specs/ai-usage/roadmap.md, last changed October 2026). A file is not a plan. Does it match the roadmap in the data room, and has the team delivered the last one it wrote?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in apps/, packages/, bin/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 56% of lines added in the last 12 months (27% of lines added in the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026)) came through AI-declared commits. Does your organisation have a policy on inheriting and maintaining that code, and does your engineering team's tooling match how it was produced?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (apps/app/docker/Dockerfile and 7 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/growilabs/growi/ea2d9cb)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 — 90 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 90 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 — 65
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few files, in the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026)files 17,685 · top5 share 0.025 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 182 · per kloc 0.28 · lines read 653,102 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) · late test per code 0.408 · early test per code 0.163 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) · late delete per insert 0.648 · early delete per insert 1.029 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 2,019 · share 0.289 · with tests 583 |
| 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 2,713 · 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 80 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 5 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 73 · release commits 41 · changelog commits 23 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthswindow last 24 months · authors 127 · top share a quarter or more |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 46 |
| 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 9 · joined 15 · regular last year 24 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 2,392 · window last 24 months · with tracked 68 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 28 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 760 · source 3,468 · test ratio 0.219 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026)sampled 38,397 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) · low content share 0.196 |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 28 · with tests 5 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 1,103 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 28 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.007 · reverts 65 · recent commits 8,991 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 4 · days since lockfile changed 3 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 24 · ci configs 28 · product files 2,713 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.152 · merges 868 · long lived 132 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.01 · commits 7,982 · over 2000 lines 81 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition threshold, in the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026)gap seconds 180 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) · min add ratio 3.0 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0125 · product files 2,708 · distinct blocks 199,405 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 657,399 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 17 |
| 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 paths; the only other matches are expired or licence tokens or placeholders, which grant nothingnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 4,319 |
| 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.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 67 · irreversible 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.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.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 8 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 323 · added in two years 112 · removed within 60 days 10 |
| 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 0.0 · days since last tag 4 · commits last 90 days 1,370 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyed, in the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026)elsewhere 55 · on branch 164 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 25
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 | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | a reporting host is named, but no setting shows whether it is used by default |
| 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 |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) were read |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (30 Oct 2020 to 2 Nov 2026) were read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was added outside test and fixture paths in the 20,000 most recent commits scanned; older history was not read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript or TSX, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm @growi/core (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @growi/pluginkit (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 52 records name growi with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2018-0652, CVE-2018-0653, CVE-2018-0654, …) |
| 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 A0DP-FW4N-CS5S 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/A0DPFW4NCS5S?via=badge)
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 205.7authenticated: False |
| 27.2s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 49.6s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 4822 |
| 239.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 239.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 350.8s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 350.8s | deleting the working copy |
Total 350.8s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).