7e4c1e1 · 50,000 commits · 15,996 files
Issued 2026-10-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity, Organization & Key-Person Risk.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 12 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.61 No release for 54 months while development continues
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/pull_request_template.md:3
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | strong | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 1% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑ui/@types/lichess/i18n.d.ts is 6,420 lines, 94× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 68 lines. 8 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 6,420. 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 | ui/@types/lichess/i18n.d.ts:1 — 6,420 lines (94× median) |
| line-count | modules/coreI18n/src/main/key.scala:1 — 3,271 lines (48× median) |
| line-count | modules/gathering/src/main/Quote.scala:1 — 1,661 lines (24× median) |
| line-count | ui/dgt/src/play.ts:1 — 1,245 lines (18× median) |
| line-count | ui/analyse/src/ctrl.ts:1 — 1,111 lines (16× 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
adequate116 test files against 2,499 source files (4.6%). 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 | 116 test files / 2,499 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.
Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (playwright.config.ts). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| playwright.config.ts | playwright.config.ts:7 — test retry |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 12,732 non-merge commits among 182 authors; across all 40,212 commits read, more than half of 40,212. In a project with 182 recent contributors and at least 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 12,732 commits; bus factor 1; 182 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.
One person alone changes billing
adequateIn the last 24 months, of 182 contributors, a single person made every change to: billing (11 commits). These are the parts where a mistake is expensive and where knowledge is hardest to rebuild. Ask who else could change them safely tomorrow.
| git log -- <area> | sole author over 24 months: billing (11 commits) |
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 · adequate · ratings ↑5% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 1622 fixes in the last 24 months, 76 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| fix commits touching tests | 76 of 1622 |
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 release for 54 months while development continues
adequateThe last tag, pre-paypal-checkout, was cut 1640 days before the survey; the typical gap between releases was 0 days, and 3040 commits landed in the last 90 days. Users run the last release, not this code.
| 47ec030f8 | last tag pre-paypal-checkout |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · strong · ratings ↑6 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 4 high or critical
adequate6 of 390 locked dependencies match 23 published advisories in OSV, 4 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: they are development dependencies.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — braces 3.0.3: GHSA-vfj7-8cjw-p6xm (high); a development dependency |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — js-yaml 4.2.0: GHSA-2883-xcg3-v3hh (high), fixed in 4.3.2; a development dependency |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — dompurify 2.5.9: GHSA-39q2-94rc-95cp (moderate), fixed in 3.4.0 |
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.
4 vendored components with no licence
adequateThird-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.
| public/javascripts/vendor/cash.min.js | public/javascripts/vendor/cash.min.js — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| public/vendor/ChessPursuit | public/vendor/ChessPursuit — 2 tracked files, no licence file |
| ui/lib/css/vendor/_flatpickr.scss | ui/lib/css/vendor/_flatpickr.scss — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| ui/lib/css/vendor/_multiple-select.scss | ui/lib/css/vendor/_multiple-select.scss — 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.
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.
16 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 9 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-08. 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 16 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
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.
| GHSA-x958-pp85-74wf | 2026-09-08: GHSA-x958-pp85-74wf (high), fixed in 05c4e27e3e863700781f925ba1dd58a4f171696f: Account takeover: POST /login can sign magic link tokens for any account whose name starts with yours |
| GHSA-5m3p-75ww-px48 | 2026-09-08: GHSA-5m3p-75ww-px48 (high), fixed in e774f0a3f06f9e00f4ad3d36986fc9dd2b3c3282: Board-play OAuth token grants account-session access |
| GHSA-634p-pgjm-jr9x | 2026-09-06: GHSA-634p-pgjm-jr9x (low): Empty-scope OAuth tokens expose private user data |
| GHSA-3q97-v964-h747 | 2026-09-06: GHSA-3q97-v964-h747 (moderate): Unused sender email can take over pending registrations |
| GHSA-622v-64xr-xvm9 | 2026-09-06: GHSA-622v-64xr-xvm9 (moderate): Forged signup cookie allows takeover of pending registrations |
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 · strong · ratings ↑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.
The code branches on the environment's name at 26 places
adequate26 places outside configuration test whether they are running in production or staging. Staging then does not exercise production's code, and each deploy is the first run of those branches. Differences belong in configuration the code reads, not in the code.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| app/UiEnv.scala | app/UiEnv.scala:54 — branch on the environment name |
| app/UiEnv.scala | app/UiEnv.scala:54 — branch on the environment name |
| app/controllers/Main.scala | app/controllers/Main.scala:65 — branch on the environment name |
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
4 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 15,848 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured One contributor authored more than half of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- 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 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 Scala codebase, with TypeScript alongside (30% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Scala in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in ui/, modules/, translation/. 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/lichess-org/lila/7e4c1e1)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 — 92 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 92 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 — 60
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few files, in the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026)files 30,308 · top5 share 0.014 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 40 · per kloc 0.13 · lines read 302,165 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) · late test per code 0.059 · early test per code 0.012 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) · late delete per insert 0.912 · early delete per insert 0.749 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 2,403 · compat files 0 |
| 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 23 |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 23 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 1 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 0 · release commits 1 · changelog commits 11 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 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 19 · joined 44 · regular last year 64 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 4,341 · window last 24 months · with tracked 129 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 16 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026)sampled 40,360 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) · low content share 0.046 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 125 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 16 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.01 · reverts 127 · recent commits 12,732 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 1 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 1 · ci configs 16 · product files 2,403 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.009 · merges 2,117 · long lived 20 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.003 · commits 11,365 · over 2000 lines 32 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was data and assets (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays it, in the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) · largest commits e6ccd56..35b1238 · bursts explained 1 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) · length stdev 17.79 · repeat share 0.154 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.001 · product files 2,383 · distinct blocks 198,688 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 304,839 · files 7 · per kloc 0.03 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | weights are stored through LFS or DVCfiles 10 |
| 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 2,675 |
| 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 51 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 2 |
| 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.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 5 |
| 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 149 · added in two years 56 · removed within 60 days 9 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | no release carried a different root licence; 1 change no release contained set asidelicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 1 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyed, in the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026)elsewhere 0 · on branch 0 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 32
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Scala: its logging setup is not read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for Scala: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (28 Sep 2018 to 27 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was added outside test and fixture paths in the 20,000 most recent commits scanned; older history was not read |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for Scala or TypeScript, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 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_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 | could not tell whether 17 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version could not be placed |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter VDYH-NS9D-EZ9E 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/VDYHNS9DEZ9E?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 | 14 | adequate |
9 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 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 | authenticated: False |
| 46.3s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 80.5s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 15996 |
| 212.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 212.6s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 277.4s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 277.4s | deleting the working copy |
Total 277.4s ·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).