30bad89 · 19,473 commits · 2,861 files
Issued 2026-10-02
Reads strong: 3 of 4 rated dimensions are strong, 1 is adequate and none is significant.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Observability & Operations is adequate. 5 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | not assessable | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 12% 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 ↑src/Text/Pandoc/Writers/Powerpoint/Output.hs is 3,068 lines, 17× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 175 lines. 5 files exceed 1,750 lines, the largest being 3,068. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | src/Text/Pandoc/Writers/Powerpoint/Output.hs:1 — 3,068 lines (17× median) |
| line-count | src/Text/Pandoc/Readers/Markdown.hs:1 — 2,413 lines (13× median) |
| line-count | src/Text/Pandoc/Readers/RST.hs:1 — 1,962 lines (11× median) |
| line-count | src/Text/Pandoc/Writers/HTML.hs:1 — 1,892 lines (10× median) |
| line-count | src/Text/Pandoc/Readers/LaTeX/Parsing.hs:1 — 1,888 lines (10× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: this repository belongs to a person rather than an organisation, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone the address names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them. What a person adds here.
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 15 of 34 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. The findings below are what it could still read.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate4 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.
| .github/workflows/nightly.yml | .github/workflows/nightly.yml:111 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/nightly.yml | .github/workflows/nightly.yml:114 — 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.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑No telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere
adequateNone of 1,805 readable files references an instrumentation, metrics or error-reporting library. If this system is in production, nobody learns that it broke from the system itself — they learn it from a customer. That is a reliability finding before it is an observability one.
| telemetry-scan | searched 1,805 tracked text files for 16 known instrumentation libraries; manifests for metrics, tracing and error-reporting families; locked dependencies for the packages that emit; 0 matched |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
One request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.
| request ids | no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
5 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 No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 653 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- 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 coverageNot rated: this repository belongs to a person rather than an organisation, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone the address names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them.
- Which of the people who wrote this are part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- Is that code finished, or abandoned, and who still knows how it works?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverageNot rated: only 15 of 34 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- 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 Haskell codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Haskell in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in src/, data/, man/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 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?
- 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/jgm/pandoc/30bad89)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 — 98 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 98 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 — 57
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 5,095 · top5 share 0.117 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 149 · per kloc 0.66 · lines read 225,247 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.123 · early test per code 0.058 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.656 · early delete per insert 0.636 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 237 · share 0.35 · with tests 83 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 300 · compat files 0 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 37 · release commits 16 · changelog commits 25 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.knowledge_silos | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 400 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 10 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 114 · source 414 · test ratio 0.275 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 302 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 18,806 · low content share 0.003 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 10 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 2,104 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 10 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.007 · reverts 13 · recent commits 1,739 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.005 · commits 1,554 · over 2000 lines 7 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was history replayed by an export or mirror tool, dated when it was replayed rather than when it was written (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 0814ee0..882c1bf · bursts explained 2 · largest net added 2,485 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 0 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 43.13 · repeat share 0.066 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 594 · write once share 0.259 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0005 · product files 300 · distinct blocks 94,109 |
| 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 1,805 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 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 878,304 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 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 | the project is itself GPL-2.0, so copyleft components carry no obligation it has not already acceptedown license GPL-2.0 · copyleft components 3 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as GPL-2.0class strong-copyleft · license GPL-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 0.0 · days since last tag -4 · commits last 90 days 412 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release, 3.12, was made after the surveyed commit on the branch surveyedelsewhere 0 · on branch 126 · tags in window 127 |
| 03.single_maintainer | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 41
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.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Haskell: its logging setup is not read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for Haskell: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not assessed for Haskell, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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.swallowed_errors | not assessed for Haskell, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.dependency_pinning | no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for Haskell, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not assessed for Haskell, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for Haskell, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for Haskell, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for Haskell, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no lockfile this survey can read, or a collector older than 0.4.0 |
| 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.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two years |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 days |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 2 records name pandoc with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-72793, CVE-2026-81659) |
| 05.advisory_record | 1 advisory in the last 24 months, none high or critical, none affecting the surveyed version; the newest on 2025-07-11; record incomplete: NVD: 2 records name pandoc with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-72793, CVE-2026-81659) |
| 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 S4RX-QHRF-SVY3 at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 105 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/S4RXQHRFSVY3?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-02 · shown | borehole 0.7.10 | 7 | strong |
12 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 7 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 7 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 7 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 7 | strong |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 3 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 7 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 8 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | authenticated: False |
| 15.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 30.9s | read the git history | commits: 19473tracked files: 2861 |
| 79.5s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 79.6s | withheld findings about one contributor: the owner is a person | withheld: 1owner kind: person |
| 79.6s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 109.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 109.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 109.0s ·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).