Borehole · Risk register · free tier

iflytek/astron-rpa

Free reading: not for reliance

df46ed8 · 486 commits · 3,137 files
Issued 2026-10-28

Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.

103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 2 findings are worth checking first. 17 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.

Worth checking first

Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.

05.26 73 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 65 high or critical in what ships
05.45 2 workload settings give a container the host

Published under today's rules. The verification code attests to this reading as it was stored. This page differs from it as follows.

3 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	adequate
03	Organization & Key-Person Risk	strong
04	Product & Engineering Maturity	adequate
05	Security & Reliability Posture	adequate
06	Observability & Operations	adequate
07	Fit with the Acquirer	not assessable

strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository

Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating

0% of added lines arrived in commits declaring an AI agent as co-author

The surviving-lines measurement was not run on this repository.

0% of lines added in the last 12 months (since 2025-10-28) arrived in AI-declared commits: 3/391 commits, confidence moderate. Also a floor.

3/484 commits declaring an agent · Claude

confidence: moderate

28% 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

102,048 lines excluded as lockfiles, vendored or generated.

This is a lower bound. It counts what the repository declares. Undeclared AI authorship is invisible here, and a single rebase removes the trailers this rests on. Absence of a declaration is absence of disclosure, not absence of AI authorship.

Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance

01 · strong · ratings ↑

A note that does not affect this rating

01.6

docker/volumes/atlas/schema.hcl is 6,523 lines, 112× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 58 lines. 17 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 6,523. 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.

Evidence

line-count	`docker/volumes/atlas/schema.hcl:1` — 6,523 lines (112× median)
line-count	`engine/components/astronverse-excel/src/astronverse/excel/excel.py:1` — 2,486 lines (42× median)
line-count	`backend/rpa-auth/src/main/java/com/iflytek/rpa/auth/sp/casdoor/service/impl/CasdoorUserServiceImpl.java:1` — 2,426 lines (41× median)
line-count	`backend/rpa-auth/src/main/java/com/iflytek/rpa/auth/sp/uap/service/impl/UserServiceImpl.java:1` — 2,259 lines (38× median)
line-count	`backend/rpa-auth/src/main/java/com/iflytek/rpa/auth/idp/iflytekIdentity/IflytekAuthenticationServiceImpl.java:1` — 1,908 lines (32× median)

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.

Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity

02 · adequate · ratings ↑

02.3

Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase

adequate

156 test files against 2,499 source files (6.2%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.

Evidence

test-file-ratio

156 test files / 2,499 source files

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

02.24

7% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines

adequate

31 of 438 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.

Evidence

git log --numstat

31 commits over 2,000 lines

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.

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 ↑

04.19

13% of bug fixes add or change a test

adequate

Of 183 fixes in the last 24 months, 24 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.

Evidence

fix commits touching tests

24 of 183

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.

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · adequate · ratings ↑

05.6

5 Dockerfiles run the application as root

adequate

No 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.

Evidence

no-USER-instruction	`backend/ai-service/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`backend/openapi-service/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`backend/resource-service/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`backend/robot-service/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.

05.26

73 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 65 high or critical in what ships

adequate worth checking first

73 of 2,667 locked dependencies match 202 published advisories in OSV, 98 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version.

The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening engine/components/astronverse-browser/uv.lock and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.

Evidence

engine/components/astronverse-browser/uv.lock	`engine/components/astronverse-browser/uv.lock` — pillow 12.0.0: GHSA-332p-7hrc-92wf (critical), fixed in 13.0.0
engine/components/astronverse-cua/uv.lock	`engine/components/astronverse-cua/uv.lock` — pillow 12.1.0: GHSA-332p-7hrc-92wf (critical), fixed in 13.0.0
engine/components/astronverse-control/uv.lock	`engine/components/astronverse-control/uv.lock` — pillow 12.3.0: GHSA-332p-7hrc-92wf (critical), fixed in 13.0.0

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.

05.45

2 workload settings give a container the host

adequate worth checking first

2 places in the deployment configuration run a container privileged or in the host's network, process or IPC namespace. A compromise of that container is a compromise of the machine, and most acquirers' security reviews block it. Node agents (network, storage, monitoring) are excluded.

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 docker/docker-compose.yml:87 settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.

Evidence

docker/docker-compose.yml	`docker/docker-compose.yml:87` — privileged or host namespace
docker/docker-compose.yml	`docker/docker-compose.yml:120` — privileged or host namespace

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.

05.49

The production build publishes source maps

adequate

The 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.

Evidence

frontend/packages/components/vite.config.ts frontend/packages/components/vite.config.ts:23 — 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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

05.25

4 environment files are committed

adequate

frontend/packages/components/.env, frontend/packages/web-app/.env.enterprise, frontend/packages/web-app/.env.opensource and more 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.

Evidence

frontend/packages/components/.env	`frontend/packages/components/.env` — committed environment file
frontend/packages/web-app/.env.enterprise	`frontend/packages/web-app/.env.enterprise` — committed environment file
frontend/packages/web-app/.env.opensource	`frontend/packages/web-app/.env.opensource` — 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.

05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

11 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.

A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.

Evidence

.github/workflows/build-push-backend.yml	`.github/workflows/build-push-backend.yml:101` — action pinned by tag
.github/workflows/build-push-backend.yml	`.github/workflows/build-push-backend.yml:104` — action pinned by tag

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

05.13

15 outbound calls can wait forever

adequate

15 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

engine/components/astronverse-cua/src/astronverse/cua/computer_use.py	`engine/components/astronverse-cua/src/astronverse/cua/computer_use.py:305` — outbound call without a timeout
engine/components/astronverse-cua/src/astronverse/cua/custom_action_screen.py	`engine/components/astronverse-cua/src/astronverse/cua/custom_action_screen.py:326` — outbound call without a timeout
engine/components/astronverse-network/src/astronverse/network/core_network.py	`engine/components/astronverse-network/src/astronverse/network/core_network.py:189` — outbound call without a timeout

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.

05.21

16 shell commands built from strings

adequate

16 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.

Evidence

engine/components/astronverse-software/src/astronverse/software/software.py	`engine/components/astronverse-software/src/astronverse/software/software.py:176` — command run through a shell
engine/components/astronverse-system/src/astronverse/system/core/printer_core.py	`engine/components/astronverse-system/src/astronverse/system/core/printer_core.py:548` — command run through a shell
engine/components/astronverse-system/src/astronverse/system/core/printer_core.py	`engine/components/astronverse-system/src/astronverse/system/core/printer_core.py:574` — 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.

05.22

1 deserialiser that can run code

adequate

1 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (`yaml.load` without a safe loader). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

engine/shared/astronverse-baseline/src/astronverse/baseline/config/config.py engine/shared/astronverse-baseline/src/astronverse/baseline/config/config.py:35 — code-executing deserialiser

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

05.48

8 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it

adequate

8 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.

Evidence

frontend/packages/components/lib/iconpark.js	`frontend/packages/components/lib/iconpark.js:1` — HTML from a variable
frontend/packages/web-app/src/components/MesssageTip/Index.vue	`frontend/packages/web-app/src/components/MesssageTip/Index.vue:48` — HTML from a variable
frontend/packages/web-app/src/components/MultiChat/Index.vue	`frontend/packages/web-app/src/components/MultiChat/Index.vue:310` — 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.

Observability & Operations

06 · adequate · ratings ↑

06.2

No structured logging library is in use

adequate

Nothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.

Evidence

logging-scan

searched 2,865 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched

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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

06.9

An error reporter is installed but never initialised

adequate

Nothing 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.

Evidence

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.

06.18

7 of 11 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`

adequate

7 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

docker/docker-compose.yml	`docker/docker-compose.yml:70` — image without a version
docker/docker-compose.yml	`docker/docker-compose.yml:83` — image without a version
docker/docker-compose.yml	`docker/docker-compose.yml:227` — 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.

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

11 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. See the tiers.

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 2,877 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it? Answer lives in: The team01.38
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? Answer lives in: The team and the submodule owners01.35
Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product? Answer lives in: Your architects, with the product roadmap01.39
Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now? Answer lives in: The team's reasoning at the time01.40

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. Answer lives in: The code host's pull request data02.32
Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic? Answer lives in: The issue tracker: backlog, sprint history, estimate accuracy02.38
How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from? Answer lives in: Tickets, chat and postmortems02.37

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · partial coverage

measured 28 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing? Answer lives in: The deal terms03.29
Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure? Answer lives in: The team; review history only suggests candidates03.28
Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors? Answer lives in: Recruiting data and the org chart03.30
Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands? Answer lives in: HR data03.31
Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time. Answer lives in: Interviews and on-call history03.14
Does the team want to stay after close? Answer lives in: Interviews03.32
How are decisions made and disagreements resolved? Answer lives in: Time with the team03.33

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · minimal coverage

Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline? Answer lives in: The data room and the team's record of estimates04.32
Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it? Answer lives in: Budget and roadmap decisions04.31
Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story? Answer lives in: Revenue, customer and churn data04.33

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? Answer lives in: The security owner05.43
What has actually broken, how often, and how badly? Answer lives in: Ticketing and chat05.41
What did external testing find, and was it fixed? Answer lives in: Reports in the data room05.42
What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence? Answer lives in: Audit reports; policy files in the tree are not evidence05.44

Observability & Operations

06 · partial coverage

measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed? Answer lives in: The operations team06.19
measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire? Answer lives in: The alerting tool and the on-call rota06.10
Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered? Answer lives in: Pager history and dashboard logs06.29
Are the service-level objectives actually met? Answer lives in: Production metrics06.30
Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off? Answer lives in: Pager exports and interviews06.31
What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there? Answer lives in: Cloud billing and capacity plans06.32

Fit with the Acquirer

07 · none coverage

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.

This is primarily a Java codebase, with Python alongside (27% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Java in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in engine/, frontend/, backend/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
The repository carries deployment configuration (backend/ai-service/Dockerfile and 6 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first? 07.2
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? Answer lives in: Your architecture07.11
What will integration cost, and in what order? Answer lives in: The engagement07.12
Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom? Answer lives in: Your org design07.13
Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign? Answer lives in: Deal terms07.14
Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors? Answer lives in: Customer contracts07.15

Request a human assessment Download JSON Badge PDF

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.

[![Borehole](/badge/iflytek/astron-rpa.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/iflytek/astron-rpa/df46ed8)

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 — 86 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 86 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 — 67

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 4,562 · top5 share 0.009
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 90 · per kloc 0.26 · lines read 345,450
04.dependency_sprawl	direct dependency counts are unremarkable
04.test_growth	test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.707 · early test per code 0.053
04.churn_trend	rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.179 · early delete per insert 0.183
04.eol_runtime	every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24
04.compat_layers	little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.002 · code files 2,343 · compat files 4
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 17
06.healthcheck_presence	a health or readiness check is defined
06.correlation_ids	a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 13
06.usage_reporting_default	the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0
06.environment_branching	environment differences live in configurationsites 3
06.release_markers	releases are markedtags last year 4 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 0
06.migrate_on_start	migrations do not run at container start
03.contributor_concentration	no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 1.1 · window last 24 months · authors 28
03.active_contributors	more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 28 · active 12mo 24
03.drive_by_contributors	a healthy share of contributors committed more than onceshare 0.357 · authors 28 · one commit authors 10
03.contributor_attrition	no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 28 · 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 28
03.second_contributor_attrition	the second and third contributors are still active
03.joiners_and_leavers	the team is not shrinkingleft 0 · joined 7 · regular last year 15
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 2 · window last 24 months · with tracked 1
02.ci_presence	CI configuration is present in the working treecount 8
02.release_cadence	tags are presenttags 6
02.conventional_commits	commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 484 · low content share 0.006
02.branch_protection_hints	process scaffolding is present in the repository
02.ci_runs_tests	CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 8 · with tests 2
02.skipped_tests	few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 160
02.ci_test_gating	no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 8
02.revert_share	change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 484
02.dependency_update_cadence	dependencies move with the codelockfiles 19 · commits since 2 · 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 14 · ci configs 8 · product files 2,343
01.burst_import	no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000
01.initial_dump	first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 261,390 · share of insertions 0.3851
01.message_uniformity	commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.89 · repeat share 0.0
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,775 · write once share 0.477
01.swallowed_errors	errors are rarely thrown awayloc 348,202 · files 64 · per kloc 0.33
01.build_reproducibility	every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 8
01.unfinished_migration	no language migration is stalled halfway
01.weights_in_git	no model weights are committedfiles 0
05.committed_secrets	no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture paths; the only other matches are expired or licence tokens or placeholders, which grant nothingnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 2,865
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_in_history	no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 609,473
05.sql_from_strings	no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0
05.tls_verification_off	no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 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.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 4
04.api_versions_coexisting	one API version is served, or none
04.deprecations_lingering	few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 6
04.ci_platforms_dropped	no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years
04.repository_status	the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0
02.development_elsewhere	nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0
05.licence_changes	the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0
05.paid_edition	no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0
04.releases_stopped	releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.0 · days since last tag 6 · commits last 90 days 49
04.release_branch	the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 0 · on branch 5 · tags in window 5
03.single_maintainer	no file says one person maintains itstatements 0
05.project_advisories	no published advisory affects the surveyed versionaffecting 0 · exploited 0 · advisories 0
05.advisory_record	no advisory against the project in the last 24 monthscritical 0 · affecting 0 · could not tell 0
05.project_exploited	no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0

Could not conclude, or did not apply — 19

Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.

Signal	Why
04.fix_share_trend	fewer than six busy quarters to compare
04.schema_churn	columns, once added, stay
06.telemetry_depth	none at all is 06.1
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.probes_identical	no Kubernetes probes
06.single_replica	no Kubernetes deployments
06.feature_flags	no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere
03.bus_factor_trend	fewer than three active years to compare
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.migration_reversibility	too few migrations to judge
05.resource_limits	no Kubernetes workload manifests
05.public_env_secret	not assessed for Java or Python, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
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

Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter RJ80-T5TK-92A9 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.

[![Borehole reading, not a certification](https://borehole.dev/badge/iflytek/astron-rpa/df46ed8.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/RJ80T5TK92A9?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: 201.0authenticated: False
11.3s	cloned the repository to a temporary directory	depth: full
15.2s	read the git history	commits: 486tracked files: 3137
140.0s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Falseread working tree: False
140.1s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
205.7s	kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
205.7s	deleting the working copy

Total 205.7s ·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).

BOREHOLE 0.7.15 DETERMINISTIC LAYER · NO MODEL CALLSREAD ON BOREHOLE'S SERVER · CLONE DELETED TAKEDOWNCONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPOSITORY? YOUR RIGHTS