9d64ddb · 24,236 commits · 9,554 files
Issued 2026-09-28
Nothing proven significant. 1 finding is worth checking first.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 13 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 26 September 2026.
- 05.61 Part of the code is under a separate licence: packages/backend/src/ee/ packages/backend/src/ee/LICENSE
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here may be significant, and its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 04.3 152 direct dependencies in a single manifest
- 1 finding rated significant by a check that has not yet held up in Borehole's calibration is now worth checking first.
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
- The file and line of 1 credential-shaped match is withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| 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 | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 16% 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
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑packages/backend/src/ee/services/AiAgentService/AiAgentService.ts is 20,497 lines, 200× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 102 lines. 178 files exceed 1,020 lines, the largest being 20,497. 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.
| line-count | packages/backend/src/ee/services/AiAgentService/AiAgentService.ts:1 — 20,497 lines (200× median) |
| line-count | packages/backend/src/services/ProjectService/ProjectService.ts:1 — 14,744 lines (144× median) |
| line-count | packages/backend/src/ee/services/AppGenerateService/AppGenerateService.ts:1 — 13,745 lines (134× median) |
| line-count | packages/backend/src/services/AsyncQueryService/AsyncQueryService.ts:1 — 11,732 lines (115× median) |
| line-count | packages/backend/src/ee/models/AiAgentModel.ts:1 — 10,984 lines (107× 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 are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (packages/backend/src/utils/credentialDestination.test.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.
| packages/backend/src/utils/credentialDestination.test.ts | packages/backend/src/utils/credentialDestination.test.ts:43 — 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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑152 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequate worth checking firstpackages/backend/package.json declares 152 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening packages/backend/package.json and the 3 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| direct-dependencies | packages/backend/package.json — 152 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/frontend/package.json — 119 declared |
| direct-dependencies | sandboxes/data-apps/template/package.json — 35 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/cli/package.json — 29 declared |
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 ↑1 credential-shaped string exists in the history
adequateMatches for JWT were committed at some point across 20,000 commits examined (the scan stopped at its limit, so older history was not read). Some of the files that held them are still in the working tree. What matters is whether each was rotated after it was committed. The code cannot tell whether any of them is live, and that decides whether this matters: none sits in production configuration, and none is in a format its provider keeps for live keys. Is any of these live? Show that each was rotated after it was committed, and when.
| history | JWT pattern added here |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
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.
2 environment files are committed
adequate.env, .env.fast-install are tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
| .env | .env — committed environment file |
| .env.fast-install | .env.fast-install — committed environment 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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate2 steps pipe a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
| scripts/aks-dev/lib.sh | scripts/aks-dev/lib.sh:58 — download piped into a shell |
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.
13 SQL statements built from strings
adequate13 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 2 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
| packages/backend/src/ee/models/McpToolCallModel.ts | packages/backend/src/ee/models/McpToolCallModel.ts:227 — SQL built from a string |
| packages/backend/src/models/ProjectModel/ProjectModel.ts | packages/backend/src/models/ProjectModel/ProjectModel.ts:3494 — SQL built from a string |
| packages/backend/src/ee/models/ManagedAgentModel.ts | packages/backend/src/ee/models/ManagedAgentModel.ts:1083 — 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.
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.
TLS certificate checks can be switched off by the user in 3 places
adequate3 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.
| packages/backend/src/clients/EmailClient/EmailClient.ts | packages/backend/src/clients/EmailClient/EmailClient.ts:182 — verification off behind an opt-in |
| packages/warehouses/src/warehouseClients/PostgresWarehouseClient.ts | packages/warehouses/src/warehouseClients/PostgresWarehouseClient.ts:918 — verification off behind an opt-in |
| packages/warehouses/src/warehouseClients/RedshiftWarehouseClient.ts | packages/warehouses/src/warehouseClients/RedshiftWarehouseClient.ts:33 — 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.
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.
66 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 71 high or critical
adequate66 of 3,410 locked dependencies match 162 published advisories in OSV, 71 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
| sandboxes/data-apps/pnpm-lock.yaml | sandboxes/data-apps/pnpm-lock.yaml — tar 7.5.13: GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw (critical), fixed in 7.5.19 |
| sandboxes/ai-coding-agent/pnpm-lock.yaml | sandboxes/ai-coding-agent/pnpm-lock.yaml — tar 7.5.15: GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw (critical), fixed in 7.5.19 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — @babel/plugin-transform-modules-systemjs 7.29.0: GHSA-fv7c-fp4j-7gwp (high), fixed in 7.29.4 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The production build publishes source maps
adequateThe 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.
| packages/frontend/rollup.config.mjs | packages/frontend/rollup.config.mjs:90 — source maps in a production build |
| packages/frontend/vite.config.ts | packages/frontend/vite.config.ts:87 — 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.
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.
Part of the code is under a separate licence: packages/backend/src/ee/
adequateA directory named for a paid edition carries its own licence. That code is usually not open source even where the rest is; what the buyer may do with each part differs.
| packages/backend/src/ee/LICENSE | packages/backend/src/ee/LICENSE — licence: unrecognised |
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.
42 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 21 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-25. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed version.
| GHSA-c7g3-r4fp-ffmp | 2026-09-25: GHSA-c7g3-r4fp-ffmp (moderate), fixed in 2.297.0: Data app AI analysis endpoints lacked effective rate limits, enabling AI cost and warehouse resource exhaustion |
| GHSA-r887-4qgj-whvr | 2026-09-25: GHSA-r887-4qgj-whvr (moderate), fixed in 2.274.1: App preview cancellations leak storage connections and deny preview availability |
| GHSA-558v-vg33-2j86 | 2026-09-18: GHSA-558v-vg33-2j86 (moderate), fixed in 2.264.0: Embed AI artifact queries execute without the embed token's user attributes, bypassing row-level filtering |
| GHSA-6cjv-g8vh-7wfc | 2026-09-18: GHSA-6cjv-g8vh-7wfc (high), fixed in 2.263.1: Two v2 endpoints (pre-aggregate materializations, project parameters) skip the assertRegisteredAccount + project-membership check their sibling endpoints in the |
| GHSA-38f2-jxq8-8ccg | 2026-09-17: GHSA-38f2-jxq8-8ccg (moderate), fixed in 2.250.2: AI agents accessible without the required permission |
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 ↑5 of 10 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate5 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.
| docker/docker-compose.infra.yml | docker/docker-compose.infra.yml:7 — image without a version |
| docker/docker-compose.infra.yml | docker/docker-compose.infra.yml:79 — image without a version |
| docker-compose.yml | docker-compose.yml:17 — 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.
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
7 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 The tree carries design documentation (docs/data-apps/adr/0001-agent-started-builds-name-the-app-up-front.md and 5 more). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- 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 165 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured 8,056 commits landed in the last year, against 2,462 the year before (+227%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- 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 TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in packages/, sandboxes/, skills/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (.gitpod.Dockerfile and 11 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/lightdash/lightdash/9d64ddb)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 — 91 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 91 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 13,903 · top5 share 0.046 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 275 · per kloc 0.13 · lines read 2,101,934 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.456 · early test per code 0.079 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.359 · early delete per insert 0.494 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 4,372 · share 0.38 · with tests 1,660 |
| 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 5,575 · 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 125 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 11 |
| 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 True · request id sites 35 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 4 · config files 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 8 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 3,800 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 40 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 5.4 · window last 24 months · authors 165 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 165 · active 12mo 47 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 165 · directories 6 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 165 · one off share 0.497 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 165 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 77 |
| 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 6 · joined 9 · regular last year 22 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 1 · window last 24 months · with tracked 502 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 23 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,127 · source 7,700 · test ratio 0.276 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 8,244 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 24,234 · low content share 0.001 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 23 · with tests 7 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 6 · test files 2,146 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 23 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 5 · recent commits 10,524 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 6 · commits since 126 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 13 · ci configs 23 · product files 5,575 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.022 · commits 9,730 · over 2000 lines 215 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was merged pull requests, each developed and reviewed on its own branch (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 itlargest commits 8ec1943..4e43884 · bursts explained 14 · largest net added 7,102 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 20,986 · share of insertions 0.0043 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.21 · repeat share 0.004 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 6,598 · write once share 0.354 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0081 · product files 5,573 · distinct blocks 859,777 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 2,110,585 · files 2 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 8,698 |
| 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.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 706 · irreversible 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 1 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0 |
| 05.unsafe_html | raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 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 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.0 · days since last tag 1 · commits last 90 days 4,919 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 17 · on branch 8,227 · tags in window 8,244 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_advisories | no published advisory affects the surveyed versionaffecting 0 · exploited 0 · advisories 42 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 20
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, stay |
| 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.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 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.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript or TSX, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | the history scanned covers 13 months, less than the 18 this question needs |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | the history scanned covers 13 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.dependency_churn | the history scanned covers 13 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | the history scanned covers 13 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 9HEP-D227-X8C4 at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 105 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/9HEPD227X8C4?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-28 · shown | borehole 0.7.4 | 14 | adequate |
10 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-25 | borehole 0.7.15 | 15 | strong |
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 15 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 15 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 15 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 15 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 14 | 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 — 3 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 | re-read from the facts kept at the last survey; nothing was cloned | facts version: a9f6f77559f9717d |
| 98.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 98.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
Total 98.0s ·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).