e4fd72b · 8,972 commits · 10,655 files
Issued 2026-10-03
The repository says it is frozen.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 2 findings are worth checking first. 19 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.60 The repository says it is frozen
- 04.60 The repository says it is frozen README.md:9
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
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.
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 2 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 | adequate | |
| 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 |
- 89% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`
adequate1 of 47 `FROM` lines in product Dockerfiles name an image without a version, or with `latest`. Each build pulls whatever the registry serves that day, so the image that ships can change without a commit, and last month's build cannot be reproduced. Pin a version, or a digest.
| foundations/stream/Dockerfile | foundations/stream/Dockerfile:36 — base image without a version |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
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.
plugins/tracker-resources/src/components/gantt/GanttView.svelte is 4,894 lines, 87× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 56 lines. 41 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,894. 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 | plugins/tracker-resources/src/components/gantt/GanttView.svelte:1 — 4,894 lines (87× median) |
| line-count | server/account/src/operations.ts:1 — 3,770 lines (67× median) |
| line-count | foundations/server/packages/postgres/src/storage.ts:1 — 2,200 lines (39× median) |
| line-count | server/account/src/utils.ts:1 — 2,165 lines (38× median) |
| line-count | plugins/view-resources/src/utils.ts:1 — 1,915 lines (34× 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 ↑Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (qms-tests/sanity/tests/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.
| qms-tests/sanity/tests/playwright.config.ts | qms-tests/sanity/tests/playwright.config.ts:35 — 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 ↑214 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequate worth checking firstdesktop/package.json declares 214 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 desktop/package.json and the 3 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| direct-dependencies | desktop/package.json — 214 declared |
| direct-dependencies | server/server-pipeline/package.json — 149 declared |
| direct-dependencies | services/github/pod-github/package.json — 113 declared |
| direct-dependencies | models/all/package.json — 98 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.
15% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 1436 fixes in the last 24 months, 221 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| fix commits touching tests | 221 of 1436 |
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 repository says it is frozen
adequate worth checking firstIts own README says so on line 9: "This repository is frozen and is no longer actively maintained.". Everything else in this report describes code its maintainers have said they will not carry forward. A buyer inherits the maintenance.
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 README.md:9 settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| README.md | README.md:9 — This repository is frozen and is no longer actively maintained. |
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.
Go 1.24 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Go 1.24 (end of life 2026-02-10). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2026-02-10. 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.
| foundations/stream/Dockerfile | foundations/stream/Dockerfile — Go 1.24, end of life 2026-02-10 |
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, v0.7.432, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v0.7.312. 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.
| fb47e5137 | tag v0.7.432 |
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 credential-shaped strings committed to the tree
adequateMatches for JWT appear in tracked files outside test and fixture paths. They stay in the history even after they leave the tree, so what matters is whether each was rotated. The code cannot tell whether any of them is live, and that decides whether this matters: none sits in production configuration, and none is in a format its provider keeps for live keys. Is any of these live? Show that each was rotated after it was committed, and when.
| JWT | 2 cited: JWT pattern matched |
| 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.
41 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 | foundations/hulylake/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | foundations/hulypulse/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | foundations/net/pods/network-pod/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | foundations/net/pods/network-tool/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.
98 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 61 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first98 of 3,708 locked dependencies match 174 published advisories in OSV, 95 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. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
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 common/config/rush/pnpm-lock.yaml settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| common/config/rush/pnpm-lock.yaml | common/config/rush/pnpm-lock.yaml — basic-ftp 5.0.5: GHSA-5rq4-664w-9x2c (critical), fixed in 5.2.0 |
| common/config/rush/pnpm-lock.yaml | common/config/rush/pnpm-lock.yaml — tar 7.5.2: GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw (critical), fixed in 7.5.19 |
| common/config/rush/pnpm-lock.yaml | common/config/rush/pnpm-lock.yaml — handlebars 4.7.8: GHSA-2w6w-674q-4c4q (critical), fixed in 4.7.9; a development dependency |
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.
| desktop/webpack.config.js | desktop/webpack.config.js:44 — 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
adequatedesktop-package/.env, desktop/.env, qms-desktop-package/.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.
| desktop-package/.env | desktop-package/.env — committed environment file |
| desktop/.env | desktop/.env — committed environment file |
| qms-desktop-package/.env | qms-desktop-package/.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
adequate13 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; 1 step pipes a download straight into a shell. 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/baseimage.yaml | .github/workflows/baseimage.yaml:24 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/baseimage.yaml | .github/workflows/baseimage.yaml:26 — action pinned by tag |
| foundations/stream/Dockerfile | foundations/stream/Dockerfile:26 — download piped into a shell |
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 SQL statements built from strings
adequate9 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 1 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| foundations/server/packages/postgres/src/storage.ts | foundations/server/packages/postgres/src/storage.ts:734 — SQL built from a string |
| foundations/server/packages/postgres/src/storage.ts | foundations/server/packages/postgres/src/storage.ts:371 — SQL built from a string |
| foundations/server/packages/postgres/src/storage.ts | foundations/server/packages/postgres/src/storage.ts:399 — SQL built from a string |
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.
4 shell commands built from strings
adequate4 places run a command through a shell (`shell=True`, `os.system`, `exec` with a template) rather than passing arguments. Where any part comes from outside, it is command injection. 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.
| foundations/utils/packages/platform-rig/bin/bump-package-version.js | foundations/utils/packages/platform-rig/bin/bump-package-version.js:25 — command run through a shell |
| services/rekoni/src/extractors/doc.ts | services/rekoni/src/extractors/doc.ts:21 — command run through a shell |
| services/rekoni/src/extractors/pdf.ts | services/rekoni/src/extractors/pdf.ts:25 — command run through a shell |
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.
19 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate19 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.
| packages/presentation/src/drawing.ts | packages/presentation/src/drawing.ts:904 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/ui/src/components/EditBox.svelte | packages/ui/src/components/EditBox.svelte:88 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/ui/src/components/LinkWrapper.svelte | packages/ui/src/components/LinkWrapper.svelte:34 — 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.
3 vendored components 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.
| pods/external/README.md | pods/external/README.md — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| pods/external/bin | pods/external/bin — 2 tracked files, no licence file |
| pods/external/package.json | pods/external/package.json — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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
10 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 8,840 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 129 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 1,071 commits landed in the last year, against 2,463 the year before (-57%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three.
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (pods/backup/build.sh). Has a restore ever been rehearsed, and how long did it take?
- 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, with JavaScript alongside (22% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in plugins/, common/, packages/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (foundations/hulylake/Dockerfile and 41 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/hcengineering/platform/e4fd72b)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 — 85 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 85 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 filesfiles 15,995 · top5 share 0.013 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 286 · per kloc 0.3 · lines read 968,099 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.485 · early delete per insert 0.488 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 5,416 · compat files 6 |
| 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 91 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 20 |
| 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 27 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 1 · settings off 7 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 191 · release commits 31 · changelog commits 98 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 5.2 · window last 24 months · authors 129 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 129 · active 12mo 33 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 129 · directories 15 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 129 · one off share 0.434 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 129 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than six months ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 65 |
| 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 6 · regular last year 17 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 226 · window last 24 months · with tracked 11 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 14 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,246 · source 6,657 · test ratio 0.187 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 1,030 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 8,604 · low content share 0.024 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 14 · with tests 4 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 27 · test files 1,463 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 14 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 9 · recent commits 3,539 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 12 · commits since 13 · days since lockfile changed 4 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 502 · ci configs 14 · product files 5,416 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.034 · commits 3,208 · over 2000 lines 109 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was merged pull requests, each developed and reviewed on its own branch (98% 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 4bc1ea0..c62dbca · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 2,509 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 279 · share of insertions 0.0001 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 16.86 · repeat share 0.028 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 8,704 · write once share 0.282 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0205 · product files 5,416 · distinct blocks 410,434 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 976,972 · files 24 · per kloc 0.03 |
| 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.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 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_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 12 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as EPL-2.0class weak-copyleft · license EPL-2.0 |
| 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 2 · files with deprecations 12 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 362 · added in two years 206 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 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 60 · commits last 90 days 65 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 20
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | tests are kept inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, stay |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 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 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript, 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.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD did not |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; NVD did not answer |
| 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 37P4-SYSP-3EXG 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/37P4SYSP3EXG?via=badge)
1 piece of evidence on this report quotes the repository directly. Four checks quote text: up to five TODO-style comments, up to four commit subjects, up to five unpinned dependency lines and one status line from the README's first screen, such as “no longer maintained”. In each case the text is the evidence, which is why it is kept by default.
This rewrites every stored reading of this repository, and every later reading, including a re-read, is stored without the quoted text. The facts we keep to re-read it still hold the lines, as the privacy notice says. The pointers stay.
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 0.7.12 | 21 | adequate |
4 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 21 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 21 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 21 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 21 | 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 | size mb: 308.9authenticated: False |
| 24.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 44.4s | read the git history | commits: 8972tracked files: 10655 |
| 294.1s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 294.1s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 431.7s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 431.7s | deleting the working copy |
Total 431.7s ·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).