Borehole · Risk register · free tier

invertase/react-native-firebase

Free reading: not for reliance

c65e1ee · 7,240 commits · 2,531 files
Issued 2026-10-23

Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity.

104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 10 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.

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

2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
The file and line of 5 credential-shaped matches are withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.

	Dimension	Rating
01	Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance	strong
02	Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity	adequate
03	Organization & Key-Person Risk	adequate
04	Product & Engineering Maturity	strong
05	Security & Reliability Posture	adequate
06	Observability & Operations	not assessable
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.

1% of lines added in the last 12 months (since 2025-10-23) arrived in AI-declared commits: 14/973 commits, confidence low. Also a floor.

14/6,781 commits declaring an agent · Claude, Claude Fable 5, Claude Opus 4.5 and 5 more

confidence: moderate

4% 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

453,957 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

packages/firestore/android/src/reactnative/java/io/invertase/firebase/firestore/ReactNativeFirebaseFirestorePipelineNodeBuilder.java is 3,729 lines, 46× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 81 lines. 15 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,729. 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	`packages/firestore/android/src/reactnative/java/io/invertase/firebase/firestore/ReactNativeFirebaseFirestorePipelineNodeBuilder.java:1` — 3,729 lines (46× median)
line-count	`packages/firestore/lib/pipelines/expressions.ts:1` — 2,875 lines (35× median)
line-count	`packages/auth/android/src/main/java/io/invertase/firebase/auth/NativeRNFBTurboAuth.java:1` — 2,829 lines (34× median)
line-count	`packages/firestore/ios/RNFBFirestore/RNFBFirestorePipelineNodeBuilder.swift:1` — 2,801 lines (34× median)
line-count	`packages/auth/ios/RNFBAuth/RNFBAuthHelper.m:1` — 2,107 lines (26× 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 ↑

02.15

2 committed .only switches other tests off

adequate

2 test files commit a focused `.only`, which runs that test and silently skips the rest of its suite. 5 skip markers across 2 of 901 test files. Each is a failure somebody chose to stop seeing; the question is whether anyone is tracking them.

Evidence

tests/README.md	`tests/README.md:135` — committed .only: other tests do not run
tests/README.md	`tests/README.md:135` — committed .only: other tests do not run
scripts/_TEMPLATE_/__tests__/_template_.test.ts	`scripts/_TEMPLATE_/__tests__/_template_.test.ts:12` — skipped test
tests/globals.js	`tests/globals.js:260` — skipped test
tests/globals.js	`tests/globals.js:267` — skipped test

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.

02.17

CI runs tests that cannot fail the build

adequate

2 test commands in CI end in `|| true` or an equivalent, so the pipeline passes whatever the tests say. A green build then means the tests ran, not that they passed.

Evidence

.github/workflows/scripts/flake-summary.sh	`.github/workflows/scripts/flake-summary.sh:35` — a test command that cannot fail
.github/workflows/scripts/flake-summary.sh	`.github/workflows/scripts/flake-summary.sh:54` — a test command that cannot fail

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.

A note that does not affect this rating

02.16

Tests are retried until they pass

adequate

The suite is configured to retry failing tests (packages/firestore/e2e/firestore.e2e.js); 1 test is individually marked to retry. 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.

Evidence

packages/firestore/e2e/firestore.e2e.js	`packages/firestore/e2e/firestore.e2e.js:187` — test retry
tests/e2e/firebase.test.js	`tests/e2e/firebase.test.js:1750` — 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.

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · adequate · ratings ↑

03.1

Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor

adequate

In the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 1,386 non-merge commits among 92 authors; across all history, a quarter or more of 6,768. In a project with 92 recent contributors and 10 years of history, that is a question about one person's role rather than a fragile team — but it is the question to ask.

Evidence

git shortlog -sn

last 24 months: top author more than half of 1,386 commits; bus factor 1; 92 authors

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.

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · strong · ratings ↑

No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · adequate · ratings ↑

05.1

5 credential-shaped strings in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings

adequate

Strings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key.

Evidence

Google API key	5 cited: Google API key, where fakes are usual
	File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.

Respond to this finding

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

05.51

The app allows plain HTTP to any server

adequate

The 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.

Evidence

tests-macos/macos/io.invertase.testing-macOS/Info.plist tests-macos/macos/io.invertase.testing-macOS/Info.plist:27 — 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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

05.21

4 shell commands built from strings

adequate

4 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

tests-macos/.jetrc.js	`tests-macos/.jetrc.js:72` — command run through a shell
tests-macos/.jetrc.js	`tests-macos/.jetrc.js:89` — command run through a shell
tests-macos/.jetrc.js	`tests-macos/.jetrc.js:96` — 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.

05.26

74 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 116 high or critical

adequate

74 of 2,711 locked dependencies match 172 published advisories in OSV, 116 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.

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

Evidence

yarn.lock	`yarn.lock` — basic-ftp 5.0.5: GHSA-5rq4-664w-9x2c (critical), fixed in 5.2.0
yarn.lock	`yarn.lock` — handlebars 4.7.8: GHSA-2w6w-674q-4c4q (critical), fixed in 4.7.9
yarn.lock	`yarn.lock` — handlebars 4.7.9: GHSA-8r5x-fm3f-whwj (critical), fixed in 4.7.10

Respond to this finding

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

05.9

1 vendored component with no licence

adequate

Third-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.

Evidence

scripts/tart/vendor/homebrew-rnfb scripts/tart/vendor/homebrew-rnfb — 3 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.

Observability & Operations

06 · not assessable · ratings ↑

Not rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.

Fit with the Acquirer

07 · not assessable · ratings ↑

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.

Check it on the running system

6 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 1,332 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it? Answer lives in: The team01.38
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 596 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

measured 961 commits landed in the last year, against 425 the year before (+126%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before? Answer lives in: The team04.11
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 05.1 and 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was. Answer lives in: The provider's console and audit log05.38
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

Not rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.

Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered? 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 TypeScript codebase, with C alongside (17% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in packages/, okf-bundle/, tests-macos/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment? 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/invertase/react-native-firebase.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/invertase/react-native-firebase/c65e1ee)

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 — 94 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 94 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 — 64

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 6,740 · top5 share 0.071
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 127 · per kloc 0.38 · lines read 334,487
04.dependency_sprawl	direct dependency counts are unremarkable
04.test_growth	test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.962 · early test per code 0.393
04.churn_trend	rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.56 · early delete per insert 0.675
04.fixes_with_tests	fixes usually come with a testfixes 426 · share 0.575 · with tests 245
04.fix_share_trend	fixing is not crowding out building
04.dependency_redundancy	one library per job, mostly
06.telemetry_presence	this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 2,124
06.structured_logging	not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.healthcheck_presence	not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.usage_reporting_default	the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0
06.migrate_on_start	migrations do not run at container start
03.active_contributors	more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 596 · active 12mo 46
03.drive_by_contributors	an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 596 · one off share 0.732
03.contributor_attrition	the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 596 · top share a quarter or more · top contributor last committed within the last three months
03.critical_path_ownership	more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 92
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 6 · joined 9 · regular last year 13
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 9
02.ci_presence	CI configuration is present in the working treecount 71
02.test_presence	tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 700 · source 1,511 · test ratio 0.463
02.release_cadence	tags are presenttags 1,128
02.conventional_commits	commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 6,781 · low content share 0.035
02.branch_protection_hints	process scaffolding is present in the repository
02.ci_runs_tests	CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 70 · with tests 8
02.revert_share	change is rarely undoneshare 0.004 · reverts 6 · recent commits 1,386
02.dependency_update_cadence	dependencies move with the codelockfiles 5 · commits since 0 · days since lockfile changed 0
02.lint_in_build	a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 22 · ci configs 71 · product files 909
02.commit_size	changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.035 · commits 1,104 · over 2000 lines 39
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 283 · share of insertions 0.0002
01.message_uniformity	commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 24.26 · repeat share 0.156
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,122 · write once share 0.377
01.duplicated_blocks	little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0213 · product files 811 · distinct blocks 76,184
01.swallowed_errors	errors are rarely thrown awayloc 336,590 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0
01.unfinished_migration	no language migration is stalled halfway
01.weights_in_git	no model weights are committedfiles 0
05.security_guardrails	at least one standard guard rail is configured
05.dependency_pinning	a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True
05.license_present	a licence file is presentfound True
05.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 182 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 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.unsafe_html	raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 1
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	every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 3
05.license_grant_unclear	the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0
05.committed_native_libraries	no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0
04.dependency_churn	few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 231 · added in two years 44 · 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
05.licence_changes	relicensed only between permissive licences: MIT → Apache-2.0 (2017-08-26)latest Apache-2.0 · weaker False · licence versions 2
05.paid_edition	no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0
04.releases_stopped	releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 3.5 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 461
04.release_branch	the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 40 · on branch 317 · tags in window 357
03.single_maintainer	no file says one person maintains itstatements 0

Could not conclude, or did not apply — 30

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

Signal	Why
04.eol_runtime	no pinned runtime version to check
04.schema_churn	no schema migrations to read
04.compat_layers	a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate
06.telemetry_depth	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.print_logging	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.correlation_ids	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.error_reporting	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.alert_rules	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.deployed_image_floats	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.probes_identical	no Kubernetes probes
06.single_replica	no Kubernetes deployments
06.environment_branching	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.release_markers	not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere
06.feature_flags	no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere
02.long_lived_branches	too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none)
01.build_reproducibility	no product Dockerfile to read
01.notebook_outputs	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.container_runs_as_root	no Dockerfile to read
05.outbound_timeouts	not a running service
05.migration_reversibility	too few migrations to judge
05.sql_from_strings	not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job
05.resource_limits	no Kubernetes workload manifests
05.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	not a running service
04.deprecations_lingering	a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users
05.project_advisories	record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm @react-native-firebase/ai (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/analytics (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/app-check (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/app-distribution (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/app (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/auth (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/crashlytics (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/database (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/firestore (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/functions (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/in-app-messaging (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/installations (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/messaging (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/perf (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/phone-number-verification (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/remote-config (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/storage (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/vertexai (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 @react-native-firebase/ai (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/analytics (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/app-check (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/app-distribution (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/app (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/auth (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/crashlytics (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/database (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/firestore (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/functions (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/in-app-messaging (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/installations (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/messaging (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/perf (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/phone-number-verification (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/remote-config (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/storage (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @react-native-firebase/vertexai (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 84AP-NR1J-5KSW 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/invertase/react-native-firebase/c65e1ee.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/84APNR1J5KSW?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: 113.3authenticated: False
12.7s	cloned the repository to a temporary directory	depth: full
24.6s	read the git history	commits: 7240tracked files: 2531
132.2s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Falseread working tree: False
132.2s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
199.0s	kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
199.0s	deleting the working copy

Total 199.0s ·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