96d6cf0 · 3,799 commits · 626 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Observability & Operations, Security & Reliability Posture.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 6 raised something worth a question. 11 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 16 submodule(s) this survey does not read: packaging/linux/flatpak/deps/flatpak-builder-tools, third-party/build-deps, third-party/dockle .gitmodules:1
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 24% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- deep scan blamed 604 of 620 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑src/video.cpp is 3,767 lines, 35× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 107 lines. 29 files exceed 1,070 lines, the largest being 3,767. 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 | src/video.cpp:1 — 3,767 lines (35× median) |
| line-count | src/confighttp.cpp:1 — 2,553 lines (23× median) |
| line-count | src/input.cpp:1 — 2,551 lines (23× median) |
| line-count | src/stream.cpp:1 — 2,457 lines (22× median) |
| line-count | src/platform/linux/kmsgrab.cpp:1 — 2,449 lines (22× 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 ↑Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository
adequateOf five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: CI workflows. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| process-scaffolding | 1 of 5 markers present across 626 tracked files |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 662 non-merge commits among 125 authors; across all history, a quarter or more of 2,672. In a project with 125 recent contributors and 7 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 662 commits; bus factor 1; 125 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.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v0.23.1, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v0.14.1. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| 8b21db64f | tag v0.23.1 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
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 ↑The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate20 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day; 1 step pipes 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/_codeql.yml | .github/workflows/_codeql.yml:24 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/_common-lint.yml | .github/workflows/_common-lint.yml:19 — action pinned by tag |
| scripts/linux_build.sh | scripts/linux_build.sh:695 — 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.
5 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate5 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| gh-pages-template/index.html | gh-pages-template/index.html:301 — HTML from a variable |
| src_assets/common/assets/web/Home.vue | src_assets/common/assets/web/Home.vue:12 — HTML from a variable |
| src_assets/common/assets/web/Home.vue | src_assets/common/assets/web/Home.vue:98 — HTML from a variable |
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 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 10 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-15. 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 0.14.1. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-6p7j-5v8v-w45h (moderate), GHSA-x97g-h2vp-g2c5 (moderate), GHSA-39hj-fxvw-758m (critical) and 1 more are fixed in the surveyed commit; which release carries them cannot be told from this history, which does not place the release users run. Answer lives in: the version you run. The record is incomplete: NVD: 32 records name sunshine with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2021-4415, CVE-2022-40692, CVE-2022-4301, …).
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-fp6g-27w5-489j | 2026-09-15: GHSA-fp6g-27w5-489j (high), fixed in v2026.914.233613: Untrusted GUI modules can execute with Sunshine's Linux capabilities |
| GHSA-c428-87f8-rrv5 | 2026-09-07: GHSA-c428-87f8-rrv5 (moderate), fixed in v2026.906.222525: Unauthenticated denial of service via short ENet control packet |
| GHSA-26q2-58j6-qmvv | 2026-09-07: GHSA-26q2-58j6-qmvv (high), fixed in v2026.906.222525: Improper input packet validation causes an out-of-bounds heap write |
| GHSA-36ff-frg7-492f | 2026-09-07: GHSA-36ff-frg7-492f (high), fixed in v2026.906.222525: Pairing PIN can be applied to an unintended client session |
| GHSA-6jvv-jqr7-m6m3 | 2026-09-07: GHSA-6jvv-jqr7-m6m3 (high), fixed in v2026.906.222525: Disabled Sunshine clients can bypass revocation with a derived client certificate |
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 ↑No telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere
adequateNone of 526 readable files references an instrumentation, metrics or error-reporting library. If this system is in production, nobody learns that it broke from the system itself — they learn it from a customer. That is a reliability finding before it is an observability one.
| telemetry-scan | searched 526 tracked text files for 16 known instrumentation libraries; manifests for metrics, tracing and error-reporting families; locked dependencies for the packages that emit; 0 matched |
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 structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| logging-scan | C source is not searched: C programs log through printf-style calls unless they take a library, and none of the 10 searched for is referenced |
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 request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.
| request ids | no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
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 No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 459 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 226 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 435 commits landed in the last year, against 224 the year before (+94%). 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 C codebase, with C++ alongside (41% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run C in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in src/, src_assets/, third-party/. 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/lizardbyte/sunshine/96d6cf0)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 — 93 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 93 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 — 64
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 1,631 · top5 share 0.079 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 23 · per kloc 0.15 · lines read 149,855 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.205 · early test per code 0.0 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.421 · early delete per insert 0.614 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 309 · share 0.214 · with tests 66 |
| 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 301 · compat files 0 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 5 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 6 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 226 · active 12mo 88 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 226 · directories 9 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 226 · one off share 0.655 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 226 · top share a quarter or more · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 125 |
| 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 4 · joined 13 · regular last year 17 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 28 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 92 · source 392 · test ratio 0.235 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 48 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 3,539 · low content share 0.011 |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 28 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 95 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 28 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 662 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 1 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 3 · ci configs 28 · product files 301 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.012 · commits 586 · over 2000 lines 7 |
| 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 3,754 · share of insertions 0.0093 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.57 · repeat share 0.05 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 417 · write once share 0.225 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0037 · product files 300 · distinct blocks 51,853 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 6 |
| 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 526 |
| 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.known_vulnerabilities | no locked dependency has a published advisoryadvisories 0 · dependencies 141 · high or critical 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 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 19 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on GPL-3.0license GPL-3.0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 17 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 17 · stated in headers or notices 1 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as GPL-3.0class strong-copyleft · license GPL-3.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 41 · added in two years 25 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 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 35.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 338 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 29
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 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.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for C or C++, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two years |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm @lizardbyte/sunshine (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 32 records name sunshine with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2021-4415, CVE-2022-40692, CVE-2022-4301, …); 5 are fixed in the surveyed commit, and the release users run is not placed by this history |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited list |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 8KXA-2XW2-31D1 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/8KXA2XW231D1?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: 586.5authenticated: False |
| 32.2s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 34.7s | read the git history | commits: 3799tracked files: 626 |
| 72.4s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 72.4s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 83.8s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 83.8s | deleting the working copy |
Total 83.8s ·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).