e9ea8d9 · 9,193 commits · 1,469 files
Issued 2026-10-28
Reads strong: 4 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Observability & Operations are adequate. 11 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
This repository reads strong. Show it in your README: the badge links to a page where anyone can check the reading. If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
[](https://borehole.dev/verify/A7VGD5255FA0?via=badge)- states a policy on AI-generated contributions CONTRIBUTING.md:138
- names CNCF GOVERNANCE.md:30
- names Cloud Native Computing Foundation README.md:18
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 81% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- deep scan blamed 1,253 of 1,253 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑policy-controller/k8s/index/src/outbound/index.rs is 3,216 lines, 22× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 141 lines. 7 files exceed 1,410 lines, the largest being 3,216. 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 | policy-controller/k8s/index/src/outbound/index.rs:1 — 3,216 lines (22× median) |
| line-count | pkg/healthcheck/healthcheck.go:1 — 3,033 lines (21× median) |
| line-count | policy-controller/k8s/index/src/inbound/index.rs:1 — 2,303 lines (16× median) |
| line-count | policy-controller/k8s/status/src/index.rs:1 — 2,105 lines (14× median) |
| line-count | multicluster/service-mirror/cluster_watcher.go:1 — 1,998 lines (14× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑Node.js 20 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 20 (end of life 2026-04-30). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2026-04-30. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| web/Dockerfile | web/Dockerfile — Node.js 20, end of life 2026-04-30 |
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.
5 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate5 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Oct 2018. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| controller/gen/client/informers/externalversions/factory.go | controller/gen/client/informers/externalversions/factory.go — deprecated since Oct 2018 |
| viz/metrics-api/gen/viz/viz.pb.go | viz/metrics-api/gen/viz/viz.pb.go — deprecated since Jan 2021 |
| controller/gen/common/net/net.pb.go | controller/gen/common/net/net.pb.go — deprecated since Jan 2021 |
| viz/tap/gen/tap/viz_tap.pb.go | viz/tap/gen/tap/viz_tap.pb.go — deprecated since Feb 2021 |
| viz/tap/gen/tap/viz_tap_grpc.pb.go | viz/tap/gen/tap/viz_tap_grpc.pb.go — deprecated since Jun 2021 |
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 ↑4 Dockerfiles run the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
| no-USER-instruction | cli/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | viz/metrics-api/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | viz/tap/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | web/Dockerfile — runs as root |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
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.
| web/app/webpack.config.js | web/app/webpack.config.js:25 — 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.
2 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate2 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| cli/cmd/inject_util.go | cli/cmd/inject_util.go:171 — outbound call without a timeout |
| pkg/k8s/metrics.go | pkg/k8s/metrics.go:45 — outbound call without a timeout |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
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.
15 of 15 Kubernetes workloads declare no resource limits
adequate15 workload manifests set no CPU or memory limits. One pod that leaks memory or spins can starve everything else on its node, and the scheduler cannot plan capacity for what it cannot see.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| charts/linkerd-control-plane/templates/destination.yaml | charts/linkerd-control-plane/templates/destination.yaml — workload with no limits |
| charts/linkerd-control-plane/templates/identity.yaml | charts/linkerd-control-plane/templates/identity.yaml — workload with no limits |
| charts/linkerd-control-plane/templates/proxy-injector.yaml | charts/linkerd-control-plane/templates/proxy-injector.yaml — workload with no limits |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
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.
43 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 43 high or critical
adequate43 of 1,800 locked dependencies match 89 published advisories in OSV, 43 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| web/app/yarn.lock | web/app/yarn.lock — proxy-addr 2.0.7: GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h (critical), fixed in 2.0.8 |
| web/app/yarn.lock | web/app/yarn.lock — shell-quote 1.10.0: GHSA-pqg4-j6r4-53mv (critical), fixed in 1.11.0 |
| web/app/yarn.lock | web/app/yarn.lock — body-parser 1.20.4: GHSA-27r3-jxmh-p828 (high), fixed in 1.20.9 |
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.
7 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-28. 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 7 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 18.9.1. 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-x393-w43f-gq32 | 2026-09-28: GHSA-x393-w43f-gq32 (moderate), fixed in 0.5.1-0.20260904190334-2946a07088e1: Linkerd HTTPRoute Route Matching Precedence Contradicts Gateway API Specification |
| GHSA-7cq8-3jwj-3pcf | 2026-09-28: GHSA-7cq8-3jwj-3pcf (high), fixed in 0.5.1-0.20260904190334-2946a07088e1: Linkerd Authorization Bypass via Case-Sensitive HTTP Hostname Matching |
| GHSA-7hx9-xmmq-23f3 | 2026-09-28: GHSA-7hx9-xmmq-23f3 (critical), fixed in 0.5.1-0.20260904190334-2946a07088e1: Code execution on the cluster administrator's workstation via Link clusterCredentialsSecret |
| GHSA-229q-25q4-rxm8 | 2026-09-28: GHSA-229q-25q4-rxm8 (moderate), fixed in 0.5.1-0.20260615155958-5861fb59158a: MeshTLSAuthentication and NetworkAuthentication HashMap Key Errors cause silent auth policy persistence (CWE-863) |
| GHSA-8wg2-5jpc-v68h | 2026-09-28: GHSA-8wg2-5jpc-v68h (high), fixed in 0.5.1-0.20260615155958-5861fb59158a: Cross-namespace EndpointSlice Injection in Linkerd2 Destination Controller |
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 ↑Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 1 of 10 workloads
adequateBoth probes call the same endpoint. When a dependency slows down, the liveness probe fails with the readiness probe, so the platform restarts pods that only needed taking out of rotation, and a partial outage becomes a full one. Liveness should ask whether the process is alive; readiness whether it can serve.
| controller/proxy-injector/fake/data/pod-with-debug-disabled.yaml | controller/proxy-injector/fake/data/pod-with-debug-disabled.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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
9 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 864 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 403 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 121 commits landed in the last year, against 283 the year before (-57%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three.
- 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 A threat model is in the tree (audits/2022/Linkerd - Threat Model.pdf). Does it name the assets this code actually handles, and is it current against the deployment?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Go codebase, with Rust alongside (16% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in cli/, controller/, web/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile-debug and 85 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/linkerd/linkerd2/e9ea8d9)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 — 77
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 3,267 · top5 share 0.06 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 100 · per kloc 0.35 · lines read 284,630 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.475 · early delete per insert 0.672 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 119 · share 0.496 · with tests 59 |
| 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 566 · 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 36 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 105 |
| 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 1 |
| 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 4 · floating 0 |
| 06.single_replica | an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 14 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 39 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 6 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 8.9 · window last 24 months · authors 403 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 403 · active 12mo 32 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 403 · directories 11 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 403 · one off share 0.69 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 403 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than six months ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 54 |
| 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 2 · joined 4 · regular last year 8 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 3 · window last 24 months · with tracked 34 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 16 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 264 · source 620 · test ratio 0.426 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 464 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 9,190 · low content share 0.0 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 16 · with tests 5 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 574 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 16 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.007 · reverts 3 · recent commits 404 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 3 · commits since 1 · days since lockfile changed 6 |
| 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 5 · ci configs 16 · product files 566 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.045 · commits 330 · over 2000 lines 15 |
| 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 42,058 · share of insertions 0.0348 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 14.89 · repeat share 0.0 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 653 · write once share 0.13 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.011 · product files 387 · distinct blocks 63,255 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 285,803 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 19 |
| 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 1,184 |
| 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 81 · 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.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 10 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 361 · added in two years 45 · 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 8.5 · days since last tag 22 · commits last 90 days 121 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 37 · on branch 34 · tags in window 71 |
| 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 — 15
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | tests are kept inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Go, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_html | not assessed for Go, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 7 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version is only known to be at least 18.9.1 |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter A7VG-D525-5FA0 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/A7VGD5255FA0?via=badge)
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 57.4authenticated: False |
| 13.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 25.3s | read the git history | commits: 9193tracked files: 1469 |
| 274.3s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 274.3s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 318.7s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 318.7s | deleting the working copy |
Total 318.7s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).