Borehole · Risk register · free tier

kubeflow/pipelines

Free reading: not for reliance

3d4c6f1 · 7,884 commits · 4,533 files
Issued 2026-11-03

Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.

104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 4 raised something worth a question. 18 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 3 November 2026.

What the repository says about itself

This repository is a mirror; development happens elsewhere CONTRIBUTING.md:85
04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
names OpenSSF README.md:6
names Cloud Native Computing Foundation README.md:93

What this survey read. This commit may not be the product users run: The newest release, 2.18.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is 2.3.0. Read this report as describing that commit, not the release users run. Survey the release branch or tag as well.

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.

	Dimension	Rating
01	Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance	adequate
02	Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity	adequate
03	Organization & Key-Person Risk	strong
04	Product & Engineering Maturity	strong
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

1% of added lines arrived in commits declaring an AI agent as co-author

The surviving-lines measurement was not run on this repository.

2% of lines added in the last 12 months (since 2025-11-03) arrived in AI-declared commits: 41/1,311 commits, confidence high. Also a floor.

41/7,836 commits declaring an agent · Claude Fable 5.1, Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) and 7 more

confidence: moderate

43% 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

2,787,970 lines excluded as lockfiles, vendored or generated.

This is a lower bound. It counts what the repository declares. Undeclared AI authorship is invisible here, and a single rebase removes the trailers this rests on. Absence of a declaration is absence of disclosure, not absence of AI authorship.

Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance

01 · adequate · ratings ↑

01.25

1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`

adequate

1 of 7 `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

components/google-cloud/Dockerfile components/google-cloud/Dockerfile:16 — 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

backend/src/apiserver/resource/resource_manager.go is 4,431 lines, 41× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 106 lines. 25 files exceed 1,060 lines, the largest being 4,431. 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	`backend/src/apiserver/resource/resource_manager.go:1` — 4,431 lines (41× median)
line-count	`sdk/python/kfp/compiler/pipeline_spec_builder.py:1` — 2,961 lines (27× median)
line-count	`frontend/server/handlers/artifacts.ts:1` — 2,267 lines (21× median)
line-count	`release/kfpr/steps.py:1` — 2,206 lines (20× median)
line-count	`backend/src/v2/component/launcher_v2.go:1` — 2,133 lines (20× 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 ↑

02.24

5% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines

adequate

64 of 1209 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.

Evidence

git log --numstat

64 commits over 2,000 lines

Respond to this finding

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

A note that does not affect this rating

02.16

Tests are retried until they pass

adequate

The suite is configured to retry failing tests (test/frontend-integration-test/dependency-smoke.test.mjs). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.

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

Evidence

test/frontend-integration-test/dependency-smoke.test.mjs test/frontend-integration-test/dependency-smoke.test.mjs:37 — test retry

Respond to this finding

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

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · 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 ↑

Notes that do not affect this rating

04.5

Effort is shifting from building to rewriting

adequate

Deleted lines per line added rose from 0.40 to 0.82 between the first and second halves of this history. Rework is normal and often healthy, but a rising ratio means an increasing share of the team's time is spent replacing code that already exists rather than building what does not. Whether that is deliberate repayment or churn is a question for the team.

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

Evidence

deletions-per-insertion

first half 0.40, second half 0.82 (split 2022-08-07)

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.

04.38

15 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago

adequate

15 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Oct 2019. 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

sdk/python/kfp/compiler/compiler.py	`sdk/python/kfp/compiler/compiler.py` — deprecated since Oct 2019
api/v2alpha1/go/pipelinespec/pipeline_spec.pb.go	`api/v2alpha1/go/pipelinespec/pipeline_spec.pb.go` — deprecated since Aug 2021
frontend/src/generated/pipeline_spec/pipeline_spec.ts	`frontend/src/generated/pipeline_spec/pipeline_spec.ts` — deprecated since Dec 2021
api/v2alpha1/go/cachekey/cache_key.pb.go	`api/v2alpha1/go/cachekey/cache_key.pb.go` — deprecated since Mar 2022
sdk/python/kfp/v2/__init__.py	`sdk/python/kfp/v2/__init__.py` — deprecated since Mar 2022

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.

04.62

Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

adequate

The newest release, 2.18.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is 2.3.0. 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.

Evidence

555bfa60a

tag 2.18.0

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.

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · adequate · ratings ↑

05.6

4 Dockerfiles run 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	`backend/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`backend/api/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`components/google-cloud/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`frontend/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.

05.23

TLS certificate checks can be switched off by the user in 1 place

adequate

1 places disable certificate verification only when a setting named for it asks: inside a branch on it, such as an `--insecure` flag, or in a client that such a branch picks, or in a probe the service runs against itself. That is an opt-in for self-signed or test servers, not verification switched off. Worth knowing whether production can reach the setting.

Evidence

backend/src/common/client/api_server/util.go backend/src/common/client/api_server/util.go:83 — verification off behind an opt-in

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.

05.49

The production build publishes source maps

adequate

The build configuration emits source maps for production, so the original source, with its comments and structure, is downloadable by every visitor. Upload them to an error tracker and keep them off the public server instead.

Evidence

frontend/vite.config.mts frontend/vite.config.mts:57 — source maps in a production build

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

05.13

12 outbound calls can wait forever

adequate

12 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.

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

Evidence

backend/src/common/client/api_server/util.go	`backend/src/common/client/api_server/util.go:131` — outbound call without a timeout
components/google-cloud/google_cloud_pipeline_components/container/preview/gcp_launcher/job_remote_runner.py	`components/google-cloud/google_cloud_pipeline_components/container/preview/gcp_launcher/job_remote_runner.py:233` — outbound call without a timeout
components/google-cloud/google_cloud_pipeline_components/container/v1/bigquery/export_model/remote_runner.py	`components/google-cloud/google_cloud_pipeline_components/container/v1/bigquery/export_model/remote_runner.py:35` — outbound call without a timeout

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

1 SQL statement built from strings

adequate

1 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. 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

backend/src/apiserver/client_manager/client_manager.go backend/src/apiserver/client_manager/client_manager.go:1044 — 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.

05.34

27 of 32 Kubernetes workloads declare no resource limits

adequate

27 workload manifests set no CPU or memory limits. One pod that leaks memory or spins can starve everything else on its node, and the scheduler cannot plan capacity for what it cannot see.

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

Evidence

manifests/kustomize/base/installs/multi-user/api-service/deployment-patch.yaml	`manifests/kustomize/base/installs/multi-user/api-service/deployment-patch.yaml` — workload with no limits
manifests/kustomize/base/installs/multi-user/persistence-agent/deployment-patch.yaml	`manifests/kustomize/base/installs/multi-user/persistence-agent/deployment-patch.yaml` — workload with no limits
manifests/kustomize/base/installs/multi-user/pipelines-profile-controller/deployment.yaml	`manifests/kustomize/base/installs/multi-user/pipelines-profile-controller/deployment.yaml` — workload with no limits

Respond to this finding

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

05.9

2 vendored components with no licence

adequate

Third-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.

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

Evidence

third_party/OWNERS	`third_party/OWNERS` — 1 tracked files, no licence file
third_party/README.md	`third_party/README.md` — 1 tracked files, no licence file

Respond to this finding

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

05.65

25 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 13 high or critical

adequate

The newest was published on 2026-10-29. 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 2 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 2.3.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-w95g-prjh-32jh (high), GHSA-m6q4-2p22-7x6f (moderate), GHSA-r98w-fgcr-qc52 (moderate) and 14 more are fixed in the surveyed commit; which release carries them cannot be told from this history, which does not place the release users run. Answer lives in: the version you run. The record is incomplete: NVD: 60 records name pipelines with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2023-37264, CVE-2024-38363, CVE-2024-41950, …).

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

GHSA-8fmv-6rg5-5924	2026-10-29: GHSA-8fmv-6rg5-5924 (high), fixed in 0.0.0-20260831164314-ba9ae72cc860: Kubeflow Pipelines: Pipeline archive upload allows decompression bomb to exhaust server memory
GHSA-wg5q-x4j9-qm54	2026-10-29: GHSA-wg5q-x4j9-qm54 (high), fixed in 0.0.0-20260904182349-be4723e33727: Kubeflow Pipelines: Run-log endpoint permits unauthorized access to pod logs
GHSA-w95g-prjh-32jh	2026-10-29: GHSA-w95g-prjh-32jh (high), fixed in 2.18.0: ScheduledWorkflow controller permits cross-tenant run destination confusion
GHSA-c53j-pv7w-x95q	2026-10-29: GHSA-c53j-pv7w-x95q (high), fixed in 2.18.0: Cross-tenant object-store credential minting through reachable KFP profile-controller webhook
GHSA-m6q4-2p22-7x6f	2026-10-29: GHSA-m6q4-2p22-7x6f (moderate), fixed in 2.18.0: Artifact and pod-log responses can execute active content in the UI origin

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 ↑

06.14

Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 5 of 7 workloads

adequate

Both 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.

Evidence

manifests/kustomize/base/installs/multi-user/pipelines-profile-controller/deployment.yaml	`manifests/kustomize/base/installs/multi-user/pipelines-profile-controller/deployment.yaml` — same probe endpoint twice
manifests/kustomize/base/pipeline/ml-pipeline-apiserver-deployment.yaml	`manifests/kustomize/base/pipeline/ml-pipeline-apiserver-deployment.yaml` — same probe endpoint twice
manifests/kustomize/base/pipeline/ml-pipeline-ui-deployment.yaml	`manifests/kustomize/base/pipeline/ml-pipeline-ui-deployment.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.

Notes that do 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.

06.33

4 of 32 deployments run a single replica

adequate

4 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.

Evidence

manifests/kustomize/base/installs/multi-user/pipelines-profile-controller/deployment.yaml	`manifests/kustomize/base/installs/multi-user/pipelines-profile-controller/deployment.yaml` — replicas: 1
manifests/kustomize/env/gcp/cloudsql-proxy/cloudsql-proxy-deployment.yaml	`manifests/kustomize/env/gcp/cloudsql-proxy/cloudsql-proxy-deployment.yaml` — replicas: 1
manifests/kustomize/third-party/metacontroller/base/stateful-set.yaml	`manifests/kustomize/third-party/metacontroller/base/stateful-set.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.

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

10 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 The tree carries design documentation (docs/agents/architecture.md and 2 more). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code. 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 568 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing? Answer lives in: The deal terms03.29
Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure? Answer lives in: The team; review history only suggests candidates03.28
Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors? Answer lives in: Recruiting data and the org chart03.30
Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands? Answer lives in: HR data03.31
Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time. Answer lives in: Interviews and on-call history03.14
Does the team want to stay after close? Answer lives in: Interviews03.32
How are decisions made and disagreements resolved? Answer lives in: Time with the team03.33

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · minimal coverage

measured 916 commits landed in the last year, against 470 the year before (+95%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before? Answer lives in: The team04.11
measured A roadmap file is in the tree (ROADMAP.md, last changed July 2026). A file is not a plan. Does it match the roadmap in the data room, and has the team delivered the last one it wrote? Answer lives in: The data room04.22
Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it? Answer lives in: Budget and roadmap decisions04.31
Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story? Answer lives in: Revenue, customer and churn data04.33

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · partial coverage

measured 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was. Answer lives in: The provider's console and audit log05.38
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 Python codebase, with Go alongside (33% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in frontend/, components/, backend/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
The repository carries deployment configuration (backend/Dockerfile and 12 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/kubeflow/pipelines.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/kubeflow/pipelines/3d4c6f1)

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 — 86 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 86 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 — 71

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 21,733 · top5 share 0.013
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 294 · per kloc 0.31 · lines read 945,031
04.dependency_sprawl	direct dependency counts are unremarkable
04.test_growth	test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.794 · early test per code 0.547
04.eol_runtime	every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24
04.fixes_with_tests	fixes usually come with a testfixes 612 · share 0.652 · with tests 399
04.fix_share_trend	fixing is not crowding out building
04.compat_layers	little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 1,791 · compat files 2
04.dependency_redundancy	one library per job, mostly
06.telemetry_presence	a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 7
06.structured_logging	a structured logging library is referencedmatches 21
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 False · request id sites 7
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 16 · floating 0
06.environment_branching	environment differences live in configurationsites 0
06.release_markers	releases are markedtags last year 17 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 51
06.migrate_on_start	migrations do not run at container start
03.contributor_concentration	no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 8.5 · window last 24 months · authors 568
03.active_contributors	more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 568 · active 12mo 101
03.knowledge_silos	every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 568 · directories 15
03.drive_by_contributors	an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 568 · one off share 0.488
03.contributor_attrition	no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 568 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than three years ago
03.critical_path_ownership	more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 166
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 10 · joined 27 · regular last year 42
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 43
02.ci_presence	CI configuration is present in the working treecount 55
02.test_presence	tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,114 · source 2,825 · test ratio 0.394
02.release_cadence	tags are presenttags 202
02.conventional_commits	commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 7,836 · 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 54 · with tests 14
02.skipped_tests	few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 1,592
02.ci_test_gating	no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 55
02.revert_share	change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 2 · recent commits 1,386
02.dependency_update_cadence	dependencies move with the codelockfiles 11 · commits since 10 · days since lockfile changed 1
02.lint_in_build	a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 12 · ci configs 55 · product files 1,791
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 24.23 · repeat share 0.022
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,795 · write once share 0.364
01.duplicated_blocks	little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.02 · product files 1,359 · distinct blocks 155,054
01.swallowed_errors	errors are rarely thrown awayloc 949,184 · files 9 · per kloc 0.02
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 4,238
05.security_guardrails	at least one standard guard rail is configured
05.dependency_pinning	a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True
05.license_present	a licence file is presentfound True
05.secrets_management_pattern	no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0
05.supply_chain_pinning	third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 253 · 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.known_vulnerabilities	no locked dependency has a published advisoryadvisories 0 · dependencies 869 · high or critical 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 81
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.api_versions_coexisting	one API version is served, or none
04.dependency_churn	few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 368 · added in two years 142 · removed within 60 days 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
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 6.5 · days since last tag 6 · commits last 90 days 642
03.single_maintainer	no file says one person maintains itstatements 0

Could not conclude, or did not apply — 15

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

Signal	Why
04.schema_churn	no schema migrations to read
06.print_logging	a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's
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
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.migration_reversibility	too few migrations to judge
05.public_env_secret	not assessed for Python or Go, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
05.unsafe_html	not assessed for Python or Go, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
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
05.project_advisories	record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV PyPI kfp (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 60 records name pipelines with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2023-37264, CVE-2024-38363, CVE-2024-41950, …); 17 are fixed in the surveyed commit, and the release users run is not placed by this history
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 ZKC2-5848-93VW 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/kubeflow/pipelines/3d4c6f1.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/ZKC2584893VW?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: 396.7authenticated: False
19.8s	cloned the repository to a temporary directory	depth: full
39.6s	read the git history	commits: 7884tracked files: 4533
370.4s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Falseread working tree: False
370.4s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
588.9s	kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
588.9s	deleting the working copy

Total 588.9s ·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