55d258b · 35,977 commits · 5,541 files
Issued 2026-10-04
Reads strong. BUSL-1.1 since 2023-08-10: source available, not open source; production use restricted until the change date.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 4 of 5 rated dimensions are strong, 1 is adequate and none is significant. Security & Reliability Posture is adequate. 8 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
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/N7SX0SR4C0TD?via=badge)- 05.60 BUSL-1.1 since 2023-08-10: source available, not open source; production use restricted until the change date
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
- The file and line of 5 credential-shaped matches are 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 | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 3% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- 20% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑internal/terraform/node_resource_abstract_instance.go is 3,491 lines, 151× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 23 lines. 28 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,491. 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. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 86% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| line-count | internal/terraform/node_resource_abstract_instance.go:1 — 3,491 lines (151× median) |
| line-count | internal/command/meta_backend.go:1 — 3,265 lines (141× median) |
| line-count | internal/cloud/tfe_client_mock.go:1 — 2,611 lines (113× median) |
| line-count | internal/plugin6/grpc_provider.go:1 — 2,115 lines (91× median) |
| line-count | internal/legacy/helper/schema/schema.go:1 — 1,780 lines (77× 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 · strong · ratings ↑19 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate19 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Dec 2020. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| internal/tfplugin5/tfplugin5.pb.go | internal/tfplugin5/tfplugin5.pb.go — deprecated since Dec 2020 |
| internal/legacy/helper/schema/resource_data.go | internal/legacy/helper/schema/resource_data.go — deprecated since Dec 2020 |
| internal/tfplugin6/tfplugin6.pb.go | internal/tfplugin6/tfplugin6.pb.go — deprecated since Feb 2021 |
| internal/backend/remote-state/oss/backend.go | internal/backend/remote-state/oss/backend.go — deprecated since Oct 2021 |
| internal/backend/remote-state/azure/backend.go | internal/backend/remote-state/azure/backend.go — deprecated since Apr 2022 |
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.
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v1.16.5, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v0.13.2. 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.
| ef47237fd | tag v1.16.5 |
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 ↑5 credential-shaped strings 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.
| private key block | 5 cited: private key block, 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.
1 Dockerfile runs 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 | 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 licence is BUSL-1.1: source available, not open source
adequateLICENSE grants BUSL-1.1: source available, not open source; production use restricted until the change date. The reading comes from the licence's own title and clauses. Whether the terms fit the buyer's intended use, and whether any paid licence transfers with the code, is a question for counsel and the licensor.
A note that does not affect this rating: it names the project's licence, a fact for the first screen rather than a weakness.
| LICENSE | LICENSE:1 — 92 lines, BUSL-1.1 |
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.
Relicensed: MPL-2.0 → BUSL-1.1 (2023-08-10)
adequateThe 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".
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.
6 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 5 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-07-28. 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 6 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 0.13.2. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 21 records name terraform with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2023-30618, CVE-2023-34236, CVE-2024-47083, …).
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-2026-14869 | 2026-07-28: CVE-2026-14869 (high): The terraform-mcp-server before version 1.1.0 is vulnerable to a server-side request forgery issue in the streamable-HTTP transport that may allow an unauthenti |
| CVE-2026-16496 | 2026-07-28: CVE-2026-16496 (high): The terraform-mcp-server before version 1.1.0 is vulnerable to an authorization bypass in the streamable-HTTP stateful transport mode that may allow a user who |
| CVE-2026-16498 | 2026-07-28: CVE-2026-16498 (critical): The terraform-mcp-server before version 1.1.0 is vulnerable to a cross-tenant credential reuse issue in the streamable-HTTP stateless transport mode that may al |
| CVE-2026-14468 | 2026-07-06: CVE-2026-14468 (high): HashiCorp Terraform Enterprise contained an issue in its version control system (VCS) ingestion of registry modules that did not correctly enforce the intended |
| CVE-2025-13357 | 2025-11-21: CVE-2025-13357 (high): Vault’s Terraform Provider incorrectly set the default deny_null_bind parameter for the LDAP auth method to false by default, potentially resulting in an insecu |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
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
2 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 (docs/architecture.md). 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 2,109 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverageNot rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Go codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in internal/, website/, version/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 162 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/hashicorp/terraform/55d258b)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 — 97 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 97 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 — 66
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 37,533 · top5 share 0.015 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 384 · per kloc 0.5 · lines read 771,819 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.422 · early test per code 0.921 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.579 · early delete per insert 0.361 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 248 · share 0.585 · with tests 145 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.026 · code files 1,287 · compat files 33 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 4,912 |
| 06.structured_logging | not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 12.3 · window last 24 months · authors 2,109 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 2,109 · active 12mo 58 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 2,109 · directories 5 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 2,109 · one off share 0.599 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 2,109 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than three years ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 140 |
| 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 10 · regular last year 23 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 302 · window last 24 months · with tracked 11 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 11 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 3,092 · source 4,348 · test ratio 0.711 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 477 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 28,890 · low content share 0.018 |
| 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 4,082 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 11 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.004 · reverts 9 · recent commits 2,278 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 11 · commits since 21 · days since lockfile changed 5 |
| 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 2 · ci configs 11 · product files 1,287 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.076 · merges 225 · long lived 17 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.013 · commits 1,985 · over 2000 lines 25 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was a branch merged by a merge commit, developed on its own branch and landed in one piece (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays itlargest commits 3e47bad..d3633ab · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 3,174 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 8 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.95 · repeat share 0.168 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,335 · write once share 0.072 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.02 · product files 1,262 · distinct blocks 153,866 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 776,373 · files 0 · 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.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 48 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no locked dependency has a published advisoryadvisories 0 · dependencies 318 · 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_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 398 · added in two years 85 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.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 -6 · commits last 90 days 389 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 31
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.dependency_pinning | no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.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_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 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 21 records name terraform with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2023-30618, CVE-2023-34236, CVE-2024-47083, …) |
| 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 N7SX-0SR4-C0TD 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/N7SX0SR4C0TD?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-04 · shown | borehole 0.7.13 | 9 | strong |
19 earlier (show)
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 9 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 9 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 9 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 8 | significant findings |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 7 | significant findings |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 7 | significant findings |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 8 | significant findings |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 8 | significant findings |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 9 | significant findings |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.0 | 16 | adequate |
| 2026-09-24 | borehole 0.4.0 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-24 | borehole 0.4.0.dev2 | 10 | adequate |
| 2026-09-24 | borehole 0.4.0.dev1 | 10 | 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 — 3 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 | re-read from the facts kept at the last survey; nothing was cloned | facts version: 1d7c04ef8dca7905 |
| 19.8s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 19.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
Total 19.8s ·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).