b85c1d2 · 50,000 commits · 30,360 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Reads strong: 3 of 4 rated dimensions are strong, 1 is adequate and none is significant.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture is adequate. 5 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/DQY4CJX7G9Z6?via=badge)- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md:60
- names Open Home Foundation AGENTS.md:54
- 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 | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 19% 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 ↑homeassistant/components/mqtt/config_flow.py is 5,429 lines, 57× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 95 lines. 117 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 5,429. 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 | homeassistant/components/mqtt/config_flow.py:1 — 5,429 lines (57× median) |
| line-count | homeassistant/helpers/device_registry.py:1 — 5,253 lines (55× median) |
| line-count | homeassistant/config_entries.py:1 — 4,474 lines (47× median) |
| line-count | homeassistant/components/recorder/migration.py:1 — 3,348 lines (35× median) |
| line-count | homeassistant/components/zwave_js/api.py:1 — 3,309 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 ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 4 of 10 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest pre-release, 2026.11.0b4, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is 2026.10.4. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) only; older history was not read.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| ab3bdecda | tag 2026.11.0b4 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑1 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 build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate4 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/builder.yml | .github/workflows/builder.yml:58 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/builder.yml | .github/workflows/builder.yml:63 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/check-requirements.md | .github/workflows/check-requirements.md:356 — 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.
17 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 11 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-29. 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 2026.10.4. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
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.
| GHSA-6456-4qg9-cqpj | 2026-10-29: GHSA-6456-4qg9-cqpj (moderate), fixed in 2026.8.0: SSRF in Service Discovery Protocol service (SSDP) |
| GHSA-4ghv-53cq-7wp3 | 2026-09-16: GHSA-4ghv-53cq-7wp3 (moderate), fixed in 2026.2.3: Home Assistant: mDNS Server-Side Request Forgery |
| GHSA-wx4m-69m9-gx3m | 2026-09-16: GHSA-wx4m-69m9-gx3m (critical), fixed in 2026.7.0: Home Assistant: XSS in Statistics Graph Card |
| GHSA-j23v-9672-677j | 2026-07-31: GHSA-j23v-9672-677j (high), fixed in 2026.5.0: Companion app (iOS) forwards NFC/QR tag scans to Home Assistant without user confirmation, allowing silent automation execution by untrusted callers |
| GHSA-2xqv-hwrf-983f | 2026-07-31: GHSA-2xqv-hwrf-983f (high), fixed in 2026.5.3: Companion app (Android) forwards NFC/QR tag scans to Home Assistant without user confirmation, allowing silent automation execution by untrusted callers |
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 4 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 No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 15,562 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverageNot rated: only 4 of 10 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- measured 2,437 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- 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 4 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 Python codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in homeassistant/, packages/, mypy_plugins/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 1 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/home-assistant/core/b85c1d2)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 — 99 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 99 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 — 55
| 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 (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026)files 30,100 · top5 share 0.083 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 115 · per kloc 0.05 · lines read 2,372,937 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) · late test per code 1.605 · early test per code 1.315 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) · late delete per insert 0.416 · early delete per insert 0.551 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 4,856 · share 0.653 · with tests 3,173 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 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 17,026 |
| 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.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 2,437 · top share less than a quarter |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 2,034 |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 105 · joined 351 · regular last year 529 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 165 · window last 24 months · with tracked 72 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 28 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 9,214 · source 20,222 · test ratio 0.456 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026)sampled 49,773 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) · low content share 0.0 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 26 · with tests 3 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 14,553 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 28 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 124 · recent commits 37,062 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 511 · days since lockfile changed 3 |
| 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 11 · ci configs 28 · product files 11,028 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.012 · commits 28,949 · over 2000 lines 357 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was merged pull requests, each developed and reviewed on its own branch (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 it, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) · largest commits eb50acf..d35e58f · bursts explained 4 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) · length stdev 15.28 · repeat share 0.0 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0109 · product files 11,008 · distinct blocks 1,253,183 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 2,389,960 · files 104 · per kloc 0.05 |
| 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.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 17,026 |
| 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.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 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.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_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on Apache-2.0license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 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 | relicensed only between permissive licences: MIT → Apache-2.0 (2017-01-28)latest Apache-2.0 · weaker False · licence versions 2 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 1.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 8,536 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 44
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 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.usage_reporting_default | the reporting hosts the product's code names are not the project's own |
| 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 |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | not assessed: the history read covers 986 days, less than the 1095 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | not assessed: the history read covers 986 days, less than the 1095 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2024 to 3 Nov 2026) were read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 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.known_vulnerabilities | no lockfile this survey can read, or a collector older than 0.4.0 |
| 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 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users |
| 04.dependency_churn | the history scanned covers 15 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | the history scanned covers 15 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD did not |
| 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 DQY4-CJX7-G9Z6 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/DQY4CJX7G9Z6?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: 910.2authenticated: False |
| 108.7s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 169.5s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 30360 |
| 596.4s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 596.4s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 955.7s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 955.7s | deleting the working copy |
Total 955.7s ·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).