8d83bcf · 5,847 commits · 1,476 files
Issued 2026-10-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Organization & Key-Person Risk, Security & Reliability Posture.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 4 raised something worth a question. 9 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 1 submodule(s) this survey does not read: crates/email/translations .gitmodules:1
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 13% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- deep scan blamed 1,473 of 1,474 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑crates/db_views/post/src/test.rs is 2,440 lines, 73× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 33 lines. 10 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 2,440. 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 | crates/db_views/post/src/test.rs:1 — 2,440 lines (73× median) |
| line-count | crates/db_views/report_combined/src/impls.rs:1 — 1,335 lines (40× median) |
| line-count | migrations/2020-06-30-135809_remove_mat_views/up.sql:1 — 1,265 lines (38× median) |
| line-count | crates/api/api_utils/src/utils.rs:1 — 1,160 lines (35× median) |
| line-count | crates/db_views/comment/src/impls.rs:1 — 1,148 lines (34× 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 · adequate · ratings ↑Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase
adequate108 test files against 1,234 source files (8.8%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.
| test-file-ratio | 108 test files / 1,234 source files |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
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 790 non-merge commits among 35 authors; across all history, a quarter or more of 4,959. In a project with 35 recent contributors and 8 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 790 commits; bus factor 1; 35 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.
Regular contributors fell from 10 to 6 in a year
adequate3 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 2 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.
| regular contributors by year | 10 then 6; 3 stopped committing, 2 began |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
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, 0.19.20, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is 0.19.5. 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.
| e9d49b7b4 | tag 0.19.20 |
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 · adequate · ratings ↑22 advisories against this project in the last 24 months
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-06-09. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. GHSA-2hrg-7x4g-9vpg (moderate) affects 0.19.5, the newest release in this history, and not the surveyed commit: its fix is in the surveyed commit, and whether a release cut elsewhere carries it could not be told. Answer lives in: the version you run.
| GHSA-2hrg-7x4g-9vpg | 2026-06-09: GHSA-2hrg-7x4g-9vpg (moderate): Rate limit bypass via X-Forwarded-For header spoofing in actix-web ConnectionInfo |
| GHSA-2g66-9fr3-ppwj | 2026-06-09: GHSA-2g66-9fr3-ppwj (low): Stored XSS via markdown image alt-text in lemmy-ui html5-embed |
| GHSA-xgg7-8hvq-8m65 | 2026-06-09: GHSA-xgg7-8hvq-8m65 (moderate): Login Endpoint User Enumeration via HTTP Response Code Differential |
| GHSA-gwfj-h8r7-792v | 2026-06-09: GHSA-gwfj-h8r7-792v (low): `CollectionAdd::Featured` does not check the post is in the community |
| GHSA-46g9-847m-qf8r | 2026-06-09: GHSA-46g9-847m-qf8r (low): Blocked users can edit private messages sent before the block |
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.
30 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 7 high or critical
adequate30 of 833 locked dependencies match 61 published advisories in OSV, 7 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. None of the high or critical ones is in what the product ships: 1 apply only under a condition the advisory states, which a lockfile cannot settle. 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.
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — lettre 0.11.19: GHSA-4pj9-g833-qx53 (critical), fixed in 0.11.22 |
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — wasmtime 37.0.3: GHSA-jhxm-h53p-jm7w (critical), fixed in 36.0.7; the advisory applies only under a condition it states |
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — diesel 2.3.7: GHSA-h5x4-m2qf-r4f2 (high), fixed in 2.3.8 |
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.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
3 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 1,417 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 292 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- 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 No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (docker/docker_db_backup.sh). Has a restore ever been rehearsed, and how long did it take?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- measured Service-level objectives are defined in the tree (crates/apub/apub/assets/friendica/activities/dislike_page.json). Are they met? The repository holds the target, not the measurement.
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- 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 Rust codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Rust in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in crates/, migrations/, docker/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker/Dockerfile and 2 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first?
- 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/lemmynet/lemmy/8d83bcf)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 — 63
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 4,908 · top5 share 0.039 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 100 · per kloc 0.75 · lines read 133,293 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.724 · early delete per insert 0.74 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 219 · share 0.205 · with tests 45 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 2 · columns added last year 31 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 1,217 · 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 23 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 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 5 · floating 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 45 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 292 · active 12mo 19 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 292 · directories 5 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 292 · one off share 0.534 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 292 · top share a quarter or more · top contributor last committed between three and six months ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 35 |
| 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 1 · window last 24 months · with tracked 18 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 1 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 665 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 5,101 · low content share 0.019 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 1 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 2 · test files 23 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 1 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.008 · reverts 6 · recent commits 790 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 0 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 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 2 · ci configs 1 · product files 1,217 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.033 · commits 718 · over 2000 lines 24 |
| 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 661 · share of insertions 0.001 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 19.57 · repeat share 0.084 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,194 · write once share 0.294 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0097 · product files 1,217 · distinct blocks 53,353 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 4 |
| 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 1,460 |
| 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 645,992 |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | every shipped Dockerfile drops to a non-root user or builds on a non-root base imagedockerfiles 1 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on AGPL-3.0license AGPL-3.0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0 |
| 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 1 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 330 · added in two years 91 · removed within 60 days 2 |
| 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 3.0 · days since last tag 21 · commits last 90 days 40 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 33
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.test_growth | tests are kept inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for SQL: its logging setup is not read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for SQL: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not assessed for SQL or Rust, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for SQL or Rust, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | no CI actions or pipe-to-shell installs to check |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for SQL or Rust, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not assessed for SQL or Rust, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for SQL or Rust, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for SQL or Rust, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for SQL or Rust, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 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 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 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 AKFJ-XX5Y-TE87 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/AKFJXX5YTE87?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-03 · shown | borehole 0.7.11 | 10 | adequate |
4 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 10 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 10 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 10 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 10 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 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: 39.2authenticated: False |
| 6.7s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 12.7s | read the git history | commits: 5847tracked files: 1476 |
| 144.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 144.6s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 162.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 162.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 162.0s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).