2b5e6f7 · 7,710 commits · 160 files
Issued 2026-10-25
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Product & Engineering Maturity, Organization & Key-Person Risk.
106 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 2 raised something worth a question. 6 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.60 The repository says it is feature-complete, in maintenance mode, or needs maintainers README.md:14
- names OpenJS Foundation GOVERNANCE.md:2
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | strong | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 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 64 of 64 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑lodash.js is 17,260 lines, 302× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 57 lines. 2 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 17,260. 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. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 95% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| line-count | lodash.js:1 — 17,260 lines (302× median) |
| line-count | perf/perf.js:1 — 1,979 lines (34× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (playwright.config.js). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| playwright.config.js | playwright.config.js:7 — test retry |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: the history is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the whole history, one contributor authored three-quarters or more of 7,470 non-merge commits among 262 authors; across all history, three-quarters or more of 7,470. In a project with 262 recent contributors and 17 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 | whole history: top author three-quarters or more of 7,470 commits; bus factor 1; 262 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 ↑The repository says it is feature-complete, in maintenance mode, or needs maintainers
adequateIts own README says so on line 14: "…Sovereign Tech Agency and will transition to the Feature-Complete maturity stage so that it remains stable, secure, and". New features are not planned, or the project is asking for maintainers. Ask who will carry it forward.
| README.md | README.md:14 — …Sovereign Tech Agency and will transition to the Feature-Complete maturity stage so that it remains stable, secure, and |
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.
Change keeps returning to the same few files
adequateFive files out of 1,469 absorb 38% of all file-level change. Concentration like this is where debt is usually being serviced rather than repaid: the same code is reopened because it is load-bearing, fragile, or both. A repository cannot tell you which — that is a conversation with the team.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| touch-count | lodash.js — 2,859 commits touched it |
| touch-count | test/test.js — 2,088 commits touched it |
| touch-count | build.js — 601 commits touched it |
| touch-count | lodash.src.js — 548 commits touched it |
| touch-count | doc/README.md — 536 commits touched it |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · strong · ratings ↑3 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-03-31. 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. The record is incomplete: NVD: 5 records name lodash with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2018-16487, CVE-2026-48795, CVE-2026-54737, …).
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-r5fr-rjxr-66jc | 2026-03-31: GHSA-r5fr-rjxr-66jc (high), fixed in 4.18.1: lodash vulnerable to Code Injection via `_.template` imports key names |
| GHSA-f23m-r3pf-42rh | 2026-03-31: GHSA-f23m-r3pf-42rh (moderate), fixed in 4.18.0: lodash vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via array path bypass in `_.unset` and `_.omit` |
| GHSA-xxjr-mmjv-4gpg | 2026-01-21: GHSA-xxjr-mmjv-4gpg (moderate), fixed in 4.17.23: Prototype Pollution Vulnerability in Lodash `_.unset` and `_.omit` functions |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
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- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured One contributor authored three-quarters or more of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- measured vendor/ (more than half of the files) has not changed in 18 months while the rest of the repository moved. Is that code finished, or abandoned, and who still knows how it works?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured A threat model is in the tree (threat-model.md). 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 coverageNot rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- 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 JavaScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run JavaScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in vendor/, perf/, lib/. 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.
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.
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/lodash/lodash/2b5e6f7)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 — 100 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 100 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 — 57
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 1 · per kloc 0.02 · lines read 64,524 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.522 · early delete per insert 0.862 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 55 |
| 06.structured_logging | not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 262 · active 12mo 11 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 262 · directories 6 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 262 · one off share 0.698 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 262 · top share three-quarters or more · top contributor last committed between three and six months ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 11 |
| 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 8 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 7 · source 27 · test ratio 0.259 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 440 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 7,518 · low content share 0.005 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 8 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 27 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 8 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 11 · days since lockfile changed 163 |
| 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 368 · share of insertions 0.0005 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 25.41 · repeat share 0.076 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 40 · write once share 0.125 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0 · product files 20 · distinct blocks 8,285 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 64,577 · files 2 · per kloc 0.11 |
| 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 55 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 705,221 |
| 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 20 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 88 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 4 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 4 · stated in headers or notices 1 |
| 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.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 36 · added in two years 0 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 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 0.0 · days since last tag 209 · commits last 90 days 2 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 15 · on branch 98 · tags in window 113 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 43
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.test_growth | not enough code written in either half to compare |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | too few fixes in 24 months to judge |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | too little recent history |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 02.revert_share | too few recent commits to judge how often change is undone |
| 02.lint_in_build | too small, or no CI to wire a linter into (02.2) |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 02.commit_size | too few recent commits |
| 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 a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no lockfile this survey can read, or a collector older than 0.4.0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 5 records name lodash with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2018-16487, CVE-2026-48795, CVE-2026-54737, …) |
| 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 PP3Q-2QRS-GXTA 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/PP3Q2QRSGXTA?via=badge)
1 piece of evidence on this report quotes the repository directly. Four checks quote text: up to five TODO-style comments, up to four commit subjects, up to five unpinned dependency lines and one status line from the README's first screen, such as “no longer maintained”. In each case the text is the evidence, which is why it is kept by default.
This rewrites every stored reading of this repository, and every later reading, including a re-read, is stored without the quoted text. The facts we keep to re-read it still hold the lines, as the privacy notice says. The pointers stay.
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-25 · shown | borehole 0.7.15 | 6 | adequate |
16 earlier (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 7 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | authenticated: False |
| 11.9s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 26.6s | read the git history | commits: 7710tracked files: 160 |
| 92.3s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 92.3s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 119.5s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 119.5s | deleting the working copy |
Total 119.5s ·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).