87e76d8 · 11,069 commits · 3,445 files
Issued 2026-10-03
AGPL-3.0 since 2024-02-12: open source; offering it over a network counts as distributing it, so a hosted product's changes must be published.
106 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 14 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.60 AGPL-3.0 since 2024-02-12: open source; offering it over a network counts as distributing it, so a hosted product's changes must be published
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 05.60 Relicensed: MIT → AGPL-3.0 (2024-02-12) LICENSE
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions CONTRIBUTING.md:26
- 1 submodule(s) this survey does not read: e2e/test-assets .gitmodules:1
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 54 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 32 high or critical in what ships
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 30% 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
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑packages/sdk/src/fetch-client.ts is 8,456 lines, 128× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 66 lines. 10 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 8,456. 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 | packages/sdk/src/fetch-client.ts:1 — 8,456 lines (128× median) |
| line-count | server/src/queries/search.repository.sql:1 — 1,947 lines (29× median) |
| line-count | server/src/enum.ts:1 — 1,298 lines (19× median) |
| line-count | server/src/repositories/asset.repository.ts:1 — 1,260 lines (19× median) |
| line-count | server/src/queries/sync.repository.sql:1 — 1,207 lines (18× 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 (e2e/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.
| e2e/playwright.config.ts | e2e/playwright.config.ts:21 — 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 ↑81 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequateserver/package.json declares 81 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.
| direct-dependencies | server/package.json — 81 declared |
| direct-dependencies | web/package.json — 45 declared |
| direct-dependencies | machine-learning/pyproject.toml — 16 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/cli/package.json — 6 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.
Effort is shifting from building to rewriting
adequateDeleted lines per line added rose from 0.62 to 0.91 between the first and second halves of this history. Rework is normal and often healthy, but a rising ratio means an increasing share of the team's time is spent replacing code that already exists rather than building what does not. Whether that is deliberate repayment or churn is a question for the team.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| deletions-per-insertion | first half 0.62, second half 0.91 (split 2024-05-31) |
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, v3.2.4, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v3.1.0. 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.
| db355f79d | tag v3.2.4 |
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 ↑3 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 | machine-learning/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | packages/cli/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | server/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.
54 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 32 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first54 of 2,965 locked dependencies match 136 published advisories in OSV, 65 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 machine-learning/uv.lock and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| machine-learning/uv.lock | machine-learning/uv.lock — anyio 4.2.0: GHSA-82r6-8w77-94w6 (critical), fixed in 4.14.2 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — tar 7.5.16: GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw (critical), fixed in 7.5.19 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — tar 6.2.1: GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw (critical), fixed in 7.5.19; 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 app allows plain HTTP to any server
adequateThe app's manifest allows unencrypted HTTP app-wide (NSAllowsArbitraryLoads, or cleartext traffic permitted), rather than for named domains. Anything sent over plain HTTP can be read on the network, and enterprise security reviews ask about it. Some apps need it by nature (a podcast or feed reader fetches whatever URL a feed gives), so ask which case this is.
| mobile/android/app/src/main/AndroidManifest.xml | mobile/android/app/src/main/AndroidManifest.xml:28 — cleartext allowed app-wide |
| mobile/android/app/src/main/res/xml/network_security_config.xml | mobile/android/app/src/main/res/xml/network_security_config.xml:3 — cleartext allowed app-wide |
| mobile/ios/Runner/Info.plist | mobile/ios/Runner/Info.plist:123 — cleartext allowed app-wide |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 environment file is committed
adequatedeployment/.env is 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.
| deployment/.env | deployment/.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.
4 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate4 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.
| server/src/emails/album-invite.email.tsx | server/src/emails/album-invite.email.tsx:43 — HTML from a variable |
| server/src/emails/album-update.email.tsx | server/src/emails/album-update.email.tsx:42 — HTML from a variable |
| server/src/emails/welcome.email.tsx | server/src/emails/welcome.email.tsx:44 — 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.
Relicensed: MIT → AGPL-3.0 (2024-02-12)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). The latest terms restrict what users, hosts or a buyer may do in ways the earlier ones did not. Code taken under the old terms stays under them, so both matter in diligence.
A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
16 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 7 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-01. 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 8 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 3.2.0. 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.
| CVE-2026-103532 | 2026-10-01: CVE-2026-103532 (moderate): A vulnerability has been found in immich-app Immich up to 2.7.5. This affects the function checkSharedLinkAccess of the file server/src/utils/access.ts of the c |
| GHSA-q89f-h332-8q2h | 2026-09-28: GHSA-q89f-h332-8q2h (high), fixed in v3.2.4: Authenticated SVG upload reaches ImageMagick coders and enables RCE |
| CVE-2026-82272 | 2026-08-28: CVE-2026-82272 (high): Immich through 3.1.0 fails to properly enforce locked asset visibility when assets are locked through the single-asset endpoint, allowing them to remain accessi |
| GHSA-h5w4-vjv4-9r5q | 2026-08-23: GHSA-h5w4-vjv4-9r5q (low): Incorrect sanitization of continue URL on the /maintenance endpoint |
| CVE-2026-59258 | 2026-07-15: CVE-2026-59258 (high): immich before 3.0.3 contains a broken access control vulnerability in the PUT /albums/:id/user/:userId endpoint that allows shared album editors to modify membe |
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 · adequate · ratings ↑No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing 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.
| logging-scan | searched 2,949 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.
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.
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
7 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured The tree carries design documentation (docs/docs/developer/img/immich_mobile_architecture.drawio). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- 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 988 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- measured The Android app requests 1 sensitive permission: ACCESS_BACKGROUND_LOCATION. Does the product need each one, and has the store's review accepted them?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a TypeScript codebase, with Dart alongside (46% 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 mobile/, server/, web/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker/docker-compose.prod.yml and 6 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/immich-app/immich/87e76d8)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 — 92 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 92 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 — 77
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 13,407 · top5 share 0.024 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 180 · per kloc 0.35 · lines read 516,504 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.227 · early test per code 0.18 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 2,269 · share 0.225 · with tests 510 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 1 · columns added last year 34 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 1,928 · compat files 0 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 40 |
| 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 11 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 2 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 8 · floating 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 1 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 52 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 13 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 4.6 · window last 24 months · authors 988 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 988 · active 12mo 322 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 988 · directories 8 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 988 · one off share 0.694 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 988 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 587 |
| 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 31 · joined 30 · regular last year 48 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 34 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 27 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 527 · source 2,455 · test ratio 0.215 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 339 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 11,011 · low content share 0.002 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 27 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 6 · test files 537 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 27 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 4,888 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 3 · commits since 13 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 12 · ci configs 27 · product files 1,928 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.023 · commits 4,505 · over 2000 lines 105 |
| 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 itlargest commits cd0e537..97c340b · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 2,133 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 21 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 16.93 · repeat share 0.016 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,405 · write once share 0.247 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0059 · product files 1,928 · distinct blocks 157,984 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 519,332 · files 1 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 23 |
| 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 2,949 |
| 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 2,414,841 |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 159 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 2 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 97 · irreversible 0 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.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.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | the project is itself AGPL-3.0, so copyleft components carry no obligation it has not already acceptedown license AGPL-3.0 · copyleft components 1 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 34 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 303 · added in two years 100 · removed within 60 days 9 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 2.0 · days since last tag -8 · commits last 90 days 683 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 15
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| 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 or Dart, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 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 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm @immich/cli (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @immich/sdk (an empty record for a package published here) 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 F7C1-A8BW-FWNC 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/F7C1A8BWFWNC?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-03 · shown | borehole 0.7.11 | 14 | adequate |
15 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.4 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 13 | 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 | authenticated: False |
| 34.0s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 64.3s | read the git history | commits: 11069tracked files: 3445 |
| 236.2s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 236.2s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 335.5s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 335.5s | deleting the working copy |
Total 335.5s ·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).