cf03889 · 8,099 commits · 5,006 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity.
106 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 4 raised something worth a question. 17 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 3 November 2026.
- 05.60 Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → AGPL-3.0 AND MIT (2026-10-20) LICENSE
- 05.61 Part of the code is under a separate licence: enterprise/ enterprise/LICENSE.md
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 15% 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 ↑backend/core/views.py is 22,688 lines, 249× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 91 lines. 88 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 22,688. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 94% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| line-count | backend/core/views.py:1 — 22,688 lines (249× median) |
| line-count | backend/core/models.py:1 — 14,178 lines (155× median) |
| line-count | backend/data_wizard/views.py:1 — 9,746 lines (107× median) |
| line-count | backend/core/serializers.py:1 — 8,246 lines (90× median) |
| line-count | frontend/src/lib/utils/table.ts:1 — 4,925 lines (54× 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 ↑8% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate246 of 3262 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.
| git log --numstat | 246 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.
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.
Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (frontend/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.
| frontend/playwright.config.ts | frontend/playwright.config.ts:18 — 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 · adequate · ratings ↑The next contributor after the top one has not committed here for more than a year
adequateThe #2 contributor of the last three years (less than a quarter of the commits) has not committed here for more than a year, while the repository is still active. These are the people a buyer assumes would step up if the top contributor stopped. The history shows only that no commits of theirs landed here, not why.
| git shortlog -sn | the #2 contributor of the last three years (less than a quarter of the commits) has not committed here for more than a year |
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.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑15% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 1199 fixes in the last 24 months, 175 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| fix commits touching tests | 175 of 1199 |
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 ↑4 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 | backend/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | cli/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | dispatcher/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | enterprise/backend/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.
Part of the code is under a separate licence: enterprise/
adequateA directory named for a paid edition carries its own licence. That code is usually not open source even where the rest is; what the buyer may do with each part differs.
| enterprise/LICENSE.md | enterprise/LICENSE.md — licence: unrecognised |
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.
10 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate10 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.
| backend/automation/workflows/actions.py | backend/automation/workflows/actions.py:2667 — outbound call without a timeout |
| backend/automation/workflows/actions.py | backend/automation/workflows/actions.py:2760 — outbound call without a timeout |
| cli/clica.py | cli/clica.py:68 — 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.
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.
2 deserialisers that can run code
adequate2 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (`yaml.load` without a safe loader, pickle). 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.
| backend/automation/workflows/views.py | backend/automation/workflows/views.py:260 — code-executing deserialiser |
| backend/chat/knowledge_graph.py | backend/chat/knowledge_graph.py:156 — 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.
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 of 3 Kubernetes workloads declare no resource limits
adequate1 workload manifests set no CPU or memory limits. One pod that leaks memory or spins can starve everything else on its node, and the scheduler cannot plan capacity for what it cannot see.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| charts/ciso-assistant/templates/statefulset.yaml | charts/ciso-assistant/templates/statefulset.yaml — workload with no limits |
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 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 1 high or critical
adequate4 of 1,288 locked dependencies match 4 published advisories in OSV, 1 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. None of the high or critical ones is in what the product ships: only the build reaches them: a bundler, a code generator, a build plugin, or a lockfile in a tooling directory.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| automation/n8n/n8n-nodes-ca/package-lock.json | automation/n8n/n8n-nodes-ca/package-lock.json — zod 3.25.76: GHSA-mrhx-c7xc-m3w5 (high), fixed in 4.6.6; reached only by the build |
| frontend/pnpm-lock.yaml | frontend/pnpm-lock.yaml — uuid 8.3.2: GHSA-w5hq-g745-h8pq (moderate), fixed in 11.1.1 |
| frontend/pnpm-lock.yaml | frontend/pnpm-lock.yaml — postcss-selector-parser 6.0.10: GHSA-rj75-hqrm-r3gf (moderate), fixed in 6.1.5; 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.
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.
| frontend/src/lib/components/MarkdownRenderer.svelte | frontend/src/lib/components/MarkdownRenderer.svelte:74 — HTML from a variable |
| frontend/src/lib/utils/mermaid.ts | frontend/src/lib/utils/mermaid.ts:38 — HTML from a variable |
| frontend/src/lib/utils/mermaid.ts | frontend/src/lib/utils/mermaid.ts:60 — HTML from a variable |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
3 vendored components with no licence
adequateThird-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| product-docs/integrations/third-party/README.md | product-docs/integrations/third-party/README.md — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| product-docs/integrations/third-party/jira.md | product-docs/integrations/third-party/jira.md — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| product-docs/integrations/third-party/servicenow.md | product-docs/integrations/third-party/servicenow.md — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → AGPL-3.0 AND MIT (2026-10-20)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
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".
| 472dff25d | LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 from 2023-09-30 |
| bac2368ba | LICENSE.md — AGPL-3.0 AND MIT from 2026-10-20 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · strong · ratings ↑No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
4 of 9 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate4 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.
| config/docker-compose-barebone.yml | config/docker-compose-barebone.yml:37 — image without a version |
| config/docker-compose-barebone.yml | config/docker-compose-barebone.yml:77 — image without a version |
| enterprise/legacy/docker-compose-remote.yml | enterprise/legacy/docker-compose-remote.yml:4 — image without a version |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 of 3 deployments run a single replica
adequate1 deployments set `replicas: 1`, and nothing (an autoscaler, a disruption budget) adds more. Every deploy and every node drain is downtime, and the availability the buyer inherits has a ceiling.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| charts/ciso-assistant/templates/statefulset.yaml | charts/ciso-assistant/templates/statefulset.yaml — replicas: 1 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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
9 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 (backend/chat/ARCHITECTURE.md and 16 more). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 135 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured Experiment tracking is configured (neptune). Can the model that ships be tied to the run, data and code that produced it?
- measured No model card is in the tree. What is the model's intended use, what was it trained on, and where does it fail?
- 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 A threat model is in the tree (backend/app_tests/api/test_api_threat_model_links.py). Does it name the assets this code actually handles, and is it current against the deployment?
- 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 Python codebase, with TypeScript alongside (42% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in backend/, frontend/, cli/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (backend/Dockerfile and 36 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/intuitem/ciso-assistant-community/cf03889)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 — 89 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 89 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 — 76
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 8,975 · top5 share 0.091 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 71 · per kloc 0.04 · lines read 1,580,651 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.264 · early test per code 0.124 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.215 · early delete per insert 0.554 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 2 · columns added last year 347 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 2,421 · compat files 3 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 10 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 117 |
| 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 False · request id sites 8 |
| 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 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 122 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 2 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 3.1 · window last 24 months · authors 135 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 135 · active 12mo 77 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 135 · directories 8 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 135 · one off share 0.533 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 135 · 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 126 |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 8 · joined 15 · regular last year 27 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 250 · window last 24 months · with tracked 11 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 31 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 572 · source 2,992 · test ratio 0.191 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 324 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 6,818 · low content share 0.031 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 31 · with tests 8 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 15 · test files 607 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 31 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.004 · reverts 15 · recent commits 3,566 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 9 · commits since 8 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 7 · ci configs 31 · product files 2,421 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.006 · merges 161 · long lived 1 |
| 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 2 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.87 · repeat share 0.139 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 3,689 · write once share 0.423 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0144 · product files 2,417 · distinct blocks 352,895 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,584,845 · files 26 · per kloc 0.03 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 9 |
| 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 4,225 |
| 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 3,899,044 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 213 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.09 · migrations 411 · irreversible 37 |
| 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.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.dataset_provenance | little data is committeddata files 0 · licence or card files 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 3 |
| 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 3 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 188 · added in two years 100 · removed within 60 days 1 |
| 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 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 2.0 · days since last tag 2 · commits last 90 days 446 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 1 · on branch 318 · tags in window 319 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 13
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 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.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | too few notebooks |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 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 @intuitem/n8n-nodes-ciso-assistant (an empty record for a package published here) did not |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; OSV npm @intuitem/n8n-nodes-ciso-assistant (an empty record for a package published here) did not answer |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited list |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 7NNF-T35A-QSQN 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/7NNFT35AQSQN?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: 308.9authenticated: False |
| 24.4s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 37.2s | read the git history | commits: 8099tracked files: 5006 |
| 275.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 275.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 470.7s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 470.7s | deleting the working copy |
Total 470.7s ·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).