b5a05a8 · 13,862 commits · 376 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Organization & Key-Person Risk.
106 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 1 raised something worth a question. 8 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 29 October 2026.
- 03.60 The project says one person maintains it README.md:120
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | strong | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 3% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- 27% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers
- deep scan blamed 373 of 373 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑packages/application-extension/src/index.ts is 1,395 lines, 31× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 45 lines. 2 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 1,395. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | packages/application-extension/src/index.ts:1 — 1,395 lines (31× median) |
| line-count | packages/notebook-extension/src/index.ts:1 — 1,010 lines (22× 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.
A move from JavaScript to TypeScript began 71 months ago and is 67% done
adequate33 product files are in the new language and 16 are still in the old one, 71 months after the first new file appeared. The new language's share of the lines rose from 3% to 92%, and moved 0 percentage points in the last year. Two languages for one job doubles what an engineer has to know, and the unmoved half is usually what nobody wants to touch. Ask whether finishing it is planned, and what it costs.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| file counts | 16 old, 33 new |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (ui-tests/playwright.config.ts). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| ui-tests/playwright.config.ts | ui-tests/playwright.config.ts:21 — test retry |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 208 non-merge commits among 30 authors; across all history, less than a quarter of 10,287. In a project with 30 recent contributors and 21 years of history, that is a question about one person's role rather than a fragile team — but it is the question to ask.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 208 commits; bus factor 1; 30 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.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The project says one person maintains it
adequateIts own files say so. Whatever the commit counts show, the project describes itself as depending on one person.
| README.md | README.md:120 — says it has a single maintainer |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v7.6.4, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v7.6.0. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| edd86af7c | tag v7.6.4 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · strong · ratings ↑16 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 27 high or critical
adequate16 of 1,568 locked dependencies match 45 published advisories in OSV, 27 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.
| yarn.lock | yarn.lock — tar 6.2.1: GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw (critical), fixed in 7.5.19 |
| yarn.lock | yarn.lock — brace-expansion 2.0.2: GHSA-3jxr-9vmj-r5cp (high), fixed in 2.1.2 |
| yarn.lock | yarn.lock — glob 10.3.10: GHSA-5j98-mcp5-4vw2 (high), fixed in 10.5.0 |
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.
5 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 4 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-21. 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 5 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 7.6.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 87 records name notebook with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2002-1969, CVE-2006-5882, CVE-2008-0706, …).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| CVE-2026-114140 | 2026-10-21: CVE-2026-114140 (high): The nbconvert tool, jupyter nbconvert, converts Jupyter notebooks to various other formats via Jinja templates. From 5.4.0 until 7.17.2, ExtractOutputPreprocess |
| GHSA-jwrc-gm9j-263p | 2026-10-15: GHSA-jwrc-gm9j-263p (moderate), fixed in 7.6.3: JupyterLab: Command link trust prompt in JupyterLab can trust a document other than the one clicked |
| GHSA-6966-vjj6-99xv | 2026-10-01: GHSA-6966-vjj6-99xv (high), fixed in 7.6.3: JupyterLab: Cross-site scripting (XSS) in JupyterLab via notebook cells pasted from the system clipboard |
| GHSA-mqcg-5x36-vfcg | 2026-05-06: GHSA-mqcg-5x36-vfcg (high), fixed in 4.5.7: JupyterLab's command linker attributes in HTML enable one-click command execution from untrusted content |
| GHSA-rch3-82jr-f9w9 | 2026-04-30: GHSA-rch3-82jr-f9w9 (high), fixed in 4.5.7: Jupyter Notebook Vulnerable to Authentication Token Theft via CommandLinker XSS |
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 · 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
1 check 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- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 648 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured 123 commits landed in the last year, against 85 the year before (+45%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- 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 coverageNot 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?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a TypeScript codebase, with JavaScript alongside (37% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in notebook/, packages/, app/. 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/jupyter/notebook/b5a05a8)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 — 65
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 3,707 · top5 share 0.056 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 6 · per kloc 0.26 · lines read 22,667 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.224 · early test per code 0.181 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.57 · early delete per insert 0.753 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 31 · share 0.226 · with tests 7 |
| 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 235 |
| 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 1 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 648 · active 12mo 19 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 648 · directories 6 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 648 · one off share 0.54 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 648 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than a year ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 30 |
| 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 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 1 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 14 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 26 · source 88 · test ratio 0.295 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 1,712 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 10,514 · low content share 0.031 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 14 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 72 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 14 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.01 · reverts 2 · recent commits 208 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 0 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 5 · ci configs 14 · product files 62 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.0 · commits 188 · over 2000 lines 0 |
| 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 146 · share of insertions 0.0002 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.0 · repeat share 0.043 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 170 · write once share 0.347 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0022 · product files 62 · distinct blocks 5,082 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 22,884 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 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 235 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 726,494 |
| 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 65 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0 |
| 05.unsafe_html | raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on BSD-3-Clauselicense BSD-3-Clause |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as BSD-3-Clauseclass permissive · license BSD-3-Clause |
| 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 310 · added in two years 27 · removed within 60 days 2 |
| 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 55 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 33
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 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.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 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 |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 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.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 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 @jupyter-notebook/application-extension (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @jupyter-notebook/application (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @jupyter-notebook/console-extension (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @jupyter-notebook/docmanager-extension (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @jupyter-notebook/documentsearch-extension (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @jupyter-notebook/lab-extension (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @jupyter-notebook/notebook-extension (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @jupyter-notebook/terminal-extension (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @jupyter-notebook/tree-extension (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @jupyter-notebook/tree (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @jupyter-notebook/ui-components (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 87 records name notebook with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2002-1969, CVE-2006-5882, CVE-2008-0706, …) |
| 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 D72K-K0PC-2XWJ at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 106 checks this run performed, the bands they produced, and the commit they were read at. It does not cover checks written since.
Put the mark in your README
The image is wrapped in a link to the verification page, so a reader can check it rather than take it on trust. If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
[](https://borehole.dev/verify/D72KK0PC2XWJ?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: 49.0authenticated: False |
| 9.3s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 17.7s | read the git history | commits: 13862tracked files: 376 |
| 88.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 88.6s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 110.6s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 110.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 110.6s ·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).