a8895ca · 3,189 commits · 2,111 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Reads strong: 5 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 1 is adequate and none is significant.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Observability & Operations is adequate. 7 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
This repository reads strong. Show it in your README: the badge links to a page where anyone can check the reading. 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/298W0YG792ED?via=badge)- states a policy on AI-generated contributions AGENTS.md:191
- names OpenSSF README.md:4
- names CNCF README.md:101
- 3 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 | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | strong | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 21% 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 2,077 of 2,077 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑pkg/lib/kptops/render_executor.go is 1,221 lines, 11× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 107 lines. 1 file exceed 1,070 lines, the largest being 1,221. 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 | pkg/lib/kptops/render_executor.go:1 — 1,221 lines (11× 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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
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 · strong · ratings ↑The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate6 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/docs-weekly.yml | .github/workflows/docs-weekly.yml:45 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/docs-weekly.yml | .github/workflows/docs-weekly.yml:68 — 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.
1 locked dependency has published vulnerabilities
adequate1 of 138 locked dependencies match 1 published advisories in OSV. 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| go.mod | go.mod — github.com/google/cel-go v0.29.0: GO-2026-6094 (moderate), fixed in 0.30.0 |
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.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑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.
Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 2 of 3 workloads
adequateBoth probes call the same endpoint. When a dependency slows down, the liveness probe fails with the readiness probe, so the platform restarts pods that only needed taking out of rotation, and a partial outage becomes a full one. Liveness should ask whether the process is alive; readiness whether it can serve.
| package-examples/ghost/ghost-app/deployment-ghost.yaml | package-examples/ghost/ghost-app/deployment-ghost.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| package-examples/ingress-nginx/controller/deployment-ingress-nginx-controller.yaml | package-examples/ingress-nginx/controller/deployment-ingress-nginx-controller.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
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.
8 of 17 deployments run a single replica
adequate8 deployments set `replicas: 1`, and nothing (an autoscaler, a disruption budget) adds more. Every deploy and every node drain is downtime, and the availability the buyer inherits has a ceiling.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| package-examples/cert-manager-basic/cainjector/deployment-cert-manager-cainjector.yaml | package-examples/cert-manager-basic/cainjector/deployment-cert-manager-cainjector.yaml — replicas: 1 |
| package-examples/cert-manager-basic/cert-manager/deployment-cert-manager.yaml | package-examples/cert-manager-basic/cert-manager/deployment-cert-manager.yaml — replicas: 1 |
| package-examples/cert-manager-basic/webhook/deployment-cert-manager-webhook.yaml | package-examples/cert-manager-basic/webhook/deployment-cert-manager-webhook.yaml — replicas: 1 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
6 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
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 360 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- 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 139 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 343 commits landed in the last year, against 67 the year before (+412%). 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- measured 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- measured Infrastructure code (package-examples/kustomize/bases/nginx/kustomization.yaml and 2 more) last changed 43 months before the newest commit, while 534 commits landed. Is the infrastructure now changed by hand? Compare the live account with the code.
- 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 Go codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in internal/, pkg/, cli/. 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/kptdev/kpt/a8895ca)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 — 96 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 96 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 — 74
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 27,524 · top5 share 0.009 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 73 · per kloc 0.59 · lines read 124,179 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.903 · early test per code 0.706 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.705 · early delete per insert 0.438 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 93 · share 0.376 · with tests 35 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 195 · 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 1 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 2 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.print_logging | raw prints are few, or outnumbered by logger callsprints 11 · logger calls 0 |
| 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 2 · floating 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 30 · release commits 3 · changelog commits 12 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 7.1 · window last 24 months · authors 139 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 139 · active 12mo 36 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 139 · directories 8 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 139 · one off share 0.504 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 139 · 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 40 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 0 · joined 12 · regular last year 17 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 85 · window last 24 months · with tracked 23 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 10 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 169 · source 342 · test ratio 0.494 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 209 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 2,524 · low content share 0.01 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 10 · with tests 4 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 1,429 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 10 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 410 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 5 · commits since 12 · days since lockfile changed 7 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 4 · ci configs 10 · product files 195 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.037 · merges 80 · long lived 3 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.036 · commits 335 · over 2000 lines 12 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 2 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 17.74 · repeat share 0.044 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 270 · write once share 0.504 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0031 · product files 173 · distinct blocks 19,268 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 125,440 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 1,377 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | dependencies are substantially pinnedunpinned 4 |
| 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.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 0 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.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.resource_limits | a LimitRange or ResourceQuota sets limits for every podworkloads 17 |
| 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_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.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 28 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 378 · added in two years 39 · removed within 60 days 1 |
| 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 2.5 · days since last tag 27 · commits last 90 days 95 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 7 · on branch 120 · tags in window 127 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 22
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.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 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.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 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_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 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV Go github.com/kptdev/kpt (an empty record for a package published here) did not |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; OSV Go github.com/kptdev/kpt (an empty record for a package published here) did not answer |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited list |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 298W-0YG7-92ED 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/298W0YG792ED?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: 77.5authenticated: False |
| 5.1s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 11.2s | read the git history | commits: 3189tracked files: 2111 |
| 130.7s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 130.7s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 170.7s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 170.7s | deleting the working copy |
Total 170.7s ·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).