Borehole · Risk register · free tier

jetlinks/jetlinks-community

Free reading: not for reliance

d81b571 · 1,485 commits · 1,562 files
Issued 2026-11-03

Significant: one contributor carries the recent work.

1 of 6 assessable dimensions carries significant findings, 5 are adequate and 0 are strong. 2 findings are worth checking first. 19 findings, each with its evidence: the commit, path and lines it rests on, or, when something is missing, what was looked for. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 28 August 2026.

What matters most

03.1 Significant: Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor

Worth checking first

Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here may be significant, and 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.

02.3 Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase
02.5 46% of commit subjects say nothing about the change

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	adequate
02	Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity	adequate
03	Organization & Key-Person Risk	significant findings
04	Product & Engineering Maturity	adequate
05	Security & Reliability Posture	adequate
06	Observability & Operations	adequate
07	Fit with the Acquirer	not assessable

strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository

Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating

0% of the code standing today was written in AI-declared commits

0% of lines still in the tree 0 of 304,683 0% of lines ever added these differ when early hand-written code has since been replaced

0% of lines added in the last 12 months (since 2025-11-03) arrived in AI-declared commits: 0/29 commits, confidence low. Also a floor.

0/1,324 commits declaring an agent

confidence: moderate

3% 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
deep scan blamed 1,562 of 1,562 counted files

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 · adequate · ratings ↑

01.25

2 base images float: no version, or `latest`

adequate

2 of 2 `FROM` lines in product Dockerfiles name an image without a version, or with `latest`. Each build pulls whatever the registry serves that day, so the image that ships can change without a commit, and last month's build cannot be reproduced. Pin a version, or a digest.

Evidence

jetlinks-standalone/Dockerfile	`jetlinks-standalone/Dockerfile:1` — base image without a version
jetlinks-standalone/Dockerfile	`jetlinks-standalone/Dockerfile:6` — base 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.

A note that does not affect this rating

01.6

jetlinks-manager/device-manager/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/device/web/DeviceInstanceController.java is 1,193 lines, 16× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 72 lines. 4 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 1,193. 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	`jetlinks-manager/device-manager/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/device/web/DeviceInstanceController.java:1` — 1,193 lines (16× median)
line-count	`jetlinks-components/common-component/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/buffer/PersistenceBuffer.java:1` — 1,160 lines (16× median)
line-count	`jetlinks-components/things-component/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/things/data/LocalFileThingsDataManager.java:1` — 1,126 lines (15× median)
line-count	`jetlinks-manager/device-manager/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/device/service/LocalDeviceInstanceService.java:1` — 1,104 lines (15× 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.

Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity

02 · adequate · ratings ↑

02.3

Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase

adequate worth checking first

12 test files against 1,384 source files (0.9%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.

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. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.

Evidence

test-file-ratio

12 test files / 1,384 source files

Respond to this finding

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

02.5

46% of commit subjects say nothing about the change

adequate worth checking first

606 of 1,324 subjects are either under twelve characters or one of the standard placeholders — wip, fix, update. The history is therefore not usable for reconstructing why a decision was taken, which is the main thing an inheriting engineer needs it for. It says nothing about code quality and a great deal about how much context transfers with the asset.

Evidence

commit-subject-content	606/1,324 low-content subjects (45.8%)
example	'增加tcp 模块'
example	'优化'
example	'优化'
example	'定价'

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

02.6

Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository

adequate

Of five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: CI workflows. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.

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

Evidence

process-scaffolding

1 of 5 markers present across 1,562 tracked files

Respond to this finding

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

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · significant findings · ratings ↑

03.1

Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor

significant findings

In the last 24 months, one contributor authored three-quarters or more of 191 non-merge commits among 13 authors; across all history, a quarter or more of 1,297. This is the single most expensive thing to discover after closing, and the repository cannot tell you whether that person is part of the transaction.

Evidence

git shortlog -sn

last 24 months: top author three-quarters or more of 191 commits; bus factor 1; 13 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.

03.5

The contributor who wrote a quarter or more of this has not committed here for more than three years

adequate

One person authored a quarter or more of 1,297 commits and has not committed here for more than three years, while the repository has kept moving. The concentration figure alone would not show this. Whoever is changing this code now is not the person who wrote most of it, which is the situation an acquirer is usually told they are avoiding. The history shows only that no commits of theirs landed here, not why.

Evidence

last-commit-by-top-author	last commit more than three years ago, measured to the survey
git shortlog -sn	top author a quarter or more of 1,297 commits

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.

03.27

Regular contributors fell from 5 to 3 in a year

adequate

2 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 0 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.

Evidence

regular contributors by year

5 then 3; 2 stopped committing, 0 began

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 · adequate · ratings ↑

04.19

2% of bug fixes add or change a test

adequate

Of 43 fixes in the last 24 months, 1 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.

Evidence

fix commits touching tests

1 of 43

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

04.38

12 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago

adequate

12 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Feb 2020. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.

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

Evidence

jetlinks-manager/device-manager/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/device/web/DeviceInstanceController.java	`jetlinks-manager/device-manager/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/device/web/DeviceInstanceController.java` — deprecated since Feb 2020
jetlinks-manager/device-manager/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/device/service/LocalDeviceInstanceService.java	`jetlinks-manager/device-manager/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/device/service/LocalDeviceInstanceService.java` — deprecated since Mar 2020
jetlinks-components/timeseries-component/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/timeseries/query/AggregationQueryParam.java	`jetlinks-components/timeseries-component/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/timeseries/query/AggregationQueryParam.java` — deprecated since Sep 2020
jetlinks-components/network-component/network-core/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/network/utils/BytesUtils.java	`jetlinks-components/network-component/network-core/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/network/utils/BytesUtils.java` — deprecated since Nov 2020
jetlinks-manager/authentication-manager/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/auth/entity/MenuEntity.java	`jetlinks-manager/authentication-manager/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/auth/entity/MenuEntity.java` — deprecated since Oct 2021

Respond to this finding

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

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · adequate · ratings ↑

05.2

None of the standard security guard rails are configured

adequate

There is no disclosure policy, no automated dependency updates, no named code owners and no pre-commit configuration. None of these is load-bearing on its own. Their collective absence says that security posture here is whatever the current team happens to remember to do, which is not a posture that survives the team changing.

Evidence

guardrail-scan

checked 5 kinds of guard rail across 1,562 tracked files; 0 present

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.

05.6

1 Dockerfile runs the application as root

adequate

No USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.

Evidence

no-USER-instruction jetlinks-standalone/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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

05.5

7 credential-shaped strings added in the history 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.

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

Evidence

history	5 cited: private key block, 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.

05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

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

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

Evidence

.github/workflows/maven_build_2.1x.yml	`.github/workflows/maven_build_2.1x.yml:11` — action pinned by tag
.github/workflows/maven_build_2.1x.yml	`.github/workflows/maven_build_2.1x.yml:12` — action pinned by tag

Respond to this finding

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

05.20

6 SQL statements built from strings

adequate

6 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 3 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.

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

Evidence

jetlinks-components/common-component/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/reactorql/impl/ComplexExistsFunction.java	`jetlinks-components/common-component/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/reactorql/impl/ComplexExistsFunction.java:115` — SQL built from a string
jetlinks-components/common-component/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/utils/ReactorUtils.java	`jetlinks-components/common-component/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/utils/ReactorUtils.java:173` — SQL built from a string
jetlinks-components/rule-engine-component/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/rule/engine/commons/ShakeLimit.java	`jetlinks-components/rule-engine-component/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/rule/engine/commons/ShakeLimit.java:111` — SQL built from a string

Respond to this finding

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

05.22

1 deserialiser that can run code

adequate

1 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (Java object streams). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.

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

Evidence

jetlinks-components/common-component/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/codec/Serializers.java jetlinks-components/common-component/src/main/java/org/jetlinks/community/codec/Serializers.java:36 — code-executing deserialiser

Respond to this finding

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

05.65

3 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical

adequate

The newest was published on 2026-10-13. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 3 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 2.10.0. 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.

Evidence

CVE-2026-110109	2026-10-13: CVE-2026-110109 (high): JetLinks Community through 2.10.0 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows users with only query access on transparent-codec to overwrite prod
CVE-2026-110110	2026-10-13: CVE-2026-110110 (moderate): JetLinks Community through 2.10.0 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows users with only query access to enable or disable any alarm configu
CVE-2026-75340	2026-08-26: CVE-2026-75340 (critical): The device metadata import interface /device/instance/{productId}/property-metadata/import of jetlinks community 2.11 is vulnerable to Server-side request forge

Respond to this finding

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

Observability & Operations

06 · adequate · ratings ↑

06.2

No structured logging library is in use

adequate

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

Evidence

logging-scan

searched 1,506 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.

A note that does not affect this rating

06.9

No error reporter is wired in

adequate

Nothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.

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

Evidence

error reporting

no error reporter initialised

Respond to this finding

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

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

8 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 1,510 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 One contributor authored a quarter or more of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it? 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 53 commits landed in the last year, against 138 the year before (-62%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three. 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 No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it? Answer lives in: The security owner05.43
What has actually broken, how often, and how badly? Answer lives in: Ticketing and chat05.41
What did external testing find, and was it fixed? Answer lives in: Reports in the data room05.42
What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence? Answer lives in: Audit reports; policy files in the tree are not evidence05.44

Observability & Operations

06 · partial coverage

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

Fit with the Acquirer

07 · none coverage

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.

This is primarily a Java codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Java in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in jetlinks-components/, jetlinks-manager/, jetlinks-standalone/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
The repository carries deployment configuration (docker/run-all/docker-compose.yml and 2 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first? 07.2
What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired? Answer lives in: Your architecture07.11
What will integration cost, and in what order? Answer lives in: The engagement07.12
Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom? Answer lives in: Your org design07.13
Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign? Answer lives in: Deal terms07.14
Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors? Answer lives in: Customer contracts07.15

Request a human assessment Download JSON Badge PDF Post on X

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/jetlinks/jetlinks-community.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/jetlinks/jetlinks-community/d81b571)

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 — 85 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 85 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 — 56

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 2,107 · top5 share 0.054
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 10 · per kloc 0.06 · lines read 156,863
04.churn_trend	rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.207 · early delete per insert 0.285
04.compat_layers	little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 1,372 · compat files 0
06.telemetry_presence	a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 54
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 14
06.usage_reporting_default	the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0
06.deployed_image_floats	every deployed image names a versionimages 4 · floating 0
06.environment_branching	environment differences live in configurationsites 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 29 · active 12mo 5
03.knowledge_silos	every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 29 · directories 3
03.drive_by_contributors	a healthy share of contributors committed more than onceshare 0.483 · authors 29 · one commit authors 14
03.critical_path_ownership	more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 13
03.second_contributor_attrition	the second and third contributors are still active
03.bus_factor_trend	the team has not narrowed to one person
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 32 · window last 24 months · with tracked 1
02.ci_presence	CI configuration is present in the working treecount 4
02.release_cadence	tags are presenttags 21
02.ci_runs_tests	CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 4 · with tests 4
02.skipped_tests	few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 28
02.ci_test_gating	no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 4
02.revert_share	change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 191
02.flaky_test_markers	tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0
02.commit_size	changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.031 · commits 191 · over 2000 lines 6
01.burst_import	the largest burst was a branch merged by a merge commit, developed on its own branch and landed in one piece (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 4fcda29..0242ce4 · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 3,772
01.initial_dump	first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 14,842 · share of insertions 0.0691
01.message_uniformity	commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 13.26 · repeat share 0.212
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,505 · write once share 0.08
01.duplicated_blocks	little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.02 · product files 1,372 · distinct blocks 78,974
01.swallowed_errors	errors are rarely thrown awayloc 158,221 · files 21 · per kloc 0.19
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 1,506
05.license_present	a licence file is presentfound True
05.secrets_management_pattern	no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0
05.shell_from_strings	product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0
05.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.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 10
05.license_vendored_unlicensed	no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0
05.license_grant_unclear	the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0
05.committed_native_libraries	no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0
04.ci_platforms_dropped	no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years
04.repository_status	the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0
02.development_elsewhere	nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0
05.licence_changes	the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0
05.paid_edition	no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0
04.releases_stopped	releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 129.5 · days since last tag 372 · commits last 90 days 3
04.release_branch	the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 2 · on branch 19 · tags in window 21
03.single_maintainer	no file says one person maintains itstatements 0
05.project_exploited	no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0

Could not conclude, or did not apply — 29

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

Signal	Why
04.dependency_sprawl	no recognised dependency manifest found
04.eol_runtime	no pinned runtime version to check
04.fix_share_trend	fewer than six busy quarters to compare
04.schema_churn	no schema migrations to read
04.dependency_redundancy	no JavaScript manifest to read
06.print_logging	not assessed for Java: its logger calls are not read
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.release_markers	fewer than 100 commits in the last year
06.feature_flags	no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere
02.dependency_update_cadence	no lockfile to date
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.dependency_pinning	no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile
05.outbound_timeouts	not assessed for Java, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
05.migration_reversibility	too few migrations to judge
05.resource_limits	no Kubernetes workload manifests
05.known_vulnerabilities	not assessed for Maven: this survey does not read their dependency files
05.public_env_secret	not a frontend
05.unsafe_html	not a frontend
05.source_maps_shipped	not a frontend
05.cleartext_traffic	not a mobile app
05.dataset_provenance	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.license_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
04.dependency_churn	few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 days
05.project_advisories	could not tell whether 3 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version could not be placed

Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter KSPZ-CBV0-SYVW 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/jetlinks/jetlinks-community/d81b571.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/KSPZCBV0SYVW?via=badge)

Quoted evidence

4 pieces of evidence on this report quote the repository directly. Four checks quote text: up to five TODO-style comments, up to four commit subjects, up to five unpinned dependency lines and one status line from the README's first screen, such as “no longer maintained”. In each case the text is the evidence, which is why it is kept by default.

This rewrites every stored reading of this repository, and every later reading, including a re-read, is stored without the quoted text. The facts we keep to re-read it still hold the lines, as the privacy notice says. The pointers stay.

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: 69.5authenticated: False
4.4s	cloned the repository to a temporary directory	depth: full
5.8s	read the git history	commits: 1485tracked files: 1562
73.7s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Trueread working tree: False
73.7s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
103.7s	kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
103.7s	deleting the working copy

Total 103.7s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended

An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).

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