0af2ad9 · 50,000 commits · 41,856 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Reads strong: 3 of 5 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
102 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Organization & Key-Person Risk are adequate. 1 finding is worth checking first. 8 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/KXT7QZ32CQKY?via=badge)- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 05.26 15 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 13 high or critical in what ships
- 4 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 | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 1% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- 46% of commits are merges; squash-merge workflows discard the trailers of the commits they collapse
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑Commit messages are templated rather than written
adequate62% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 33.5 characters. A log written by someone explaining their reasoning to a future reader does not look like this. The log is therefore weak evidence of intent, whatever the code is like. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) only; older history was not read.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| commit-subjects | 124× 'B2B-2658: Implement GraphQL Resolver Cache for Customer quer' |
| commit-subjects | 124× 'AC-13306::Adobe Commerce 2.4.8 core code is compatible with ' |
| commit-subjects | 107× 'AC-15351::Identify and replace all Zend_Cache usages with sy' |
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.
lib/web/jquery/jquery-ui.js is 18,842 lines, 258× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 73 lines. 113 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 18,842. 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 94% 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 | lib/web/jquery/jquery-ui.js:1 — 18,842 lines (258× median) |
| line-count | lib/web/jquery.js:1 — 10,717 lines (146× median) |
| line-count | lib/web/jquery/jstree/jquery.jstree.js:1 — 8,746 lines (119× median) |
| line-count | lib/web/hugerte/models/dom/model.js:1 — 8,055 lines (110× median) |
| line-count | lib/web/prototype/prototype.js:1 — 7,670 lines (105× 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 · adequate · ratings ↑Regular contributors fell from 116 to 72 in a year
adequate55 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 18 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.
| regular contributors by year | 116 then 72; 55 stopped committing, 18 began |
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 · strong · ratings ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest pre-release, 2.4.10-alpha1, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is 2.4.9. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) only; older history was not read.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| 929d88025 | tag 2.4.10-alpha1 |
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 ↑15 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 13 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first15 of 148 locked dependencies match 43 published advisories in OSV, 15 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.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening composer.lock settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| composer.lock | composer.lock — mtdowling/jmespath.php 2.8.0: GHSA-pcw8-m77r-2528 (critical), fixed in 2.9.1; the advisory applies only under a condition it states |
| composer.lock | composer.lock — composer/composer 2.9.5: GHSA-499r-g7pc-vmp9 (high), fixed in 2.10.2 |
| composer.lock | composer.lock — guzzlehttp/guzzle 7.10.0: GHSA-v5mv-p594-2x33 (high), fixed in 7.15.2 |
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.
Licence text does not match a standard licence
adequateLICENSE.txt exists but its text does not match any standard licence. A bespoke or hand-edited licence is not wrong, but it cannot be cleared by recognising its name: counsel has to read it, and until they do neither side knows precisely what rights transfer with the code.
| LICENSE.txt | LICENSE.txt:1 — 48 lines, unrecognised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
258 deserialisers that can run code
adequate258 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (PHP `unserialize`). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| app/code/Magento/Analytics/Model/Connector/Http/JsonConverter.php | app/code/Magento/Analytics/Model/Connector/Http/JsonConverter.php:47 — code-executing deserialiser |
| app/code/Magento/Analytics/ReportXml/QueryFactory.php | app/code/Magento/Analytics/ReportXml/QueryFactory.php:133 — code-executing deserialiser |
| app/code/Magento/AsyncConfig/Model/Consumer.php | app/code/Magento/AsyncConfig/Model/Consumer.php:78 — code-executing deserialiser |
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.
18 vendored components with no licence
adequateThird-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| dev/tests/integration/testsuite/Magento/Deploy/_files/Vendor/child | dev/tests/integration/testsuite/Magento/Deploy/_files/Vendor/child — 3 tracked files, no licence file |
| dev/tests/integration/testsuite/Magento/Deploy/_files/Vendor/parent | dev/tests/integration/testsuite/Magento/Deploy/_files/Vendor/parent — 4 tracked files, no licence file |
| dev/tests/integration/testsuite/Magento/Email/Model/_files/design/adminhtml/Vendor/custom_theme | dev/tests/integration/testsuite/Magento/Email/Model/_files/design/adminhtml/Vendor/custom_theme — 2 tracked files, no licence file |
| dev/tests/integration/testsuite/Magento/Email/Model/_files/design/adminhtml/Vendor/default | dev/tests/integration/testsuite/Magento/Email/Model/_files/design/adminhtml/Vendor/default — 2 tracked files, no licence file |
| dev/tests/integration/testsuite/Magento/Email/Model/_files/design/frontend/Vendor/custom_theme | dev/tests/integration/testsuite/Magento/Email/Model/_files/design/frontend/Vendor/custom_theme — 5 tracked files, no licence file |
| dev/tests/integration/testsuite/Magento/Email/Model/_files/design/frontend/Vendor/default | dev/tests/integration/testsuite/Magento/Email/Model/_files/design/frontend/Vendor/default — 5 tracked files, no licence file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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.
Check it on the running system
2 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 20,951 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 726 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- 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.
- 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 PHP codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run PHP in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in app/, lib/, setup/. 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/magento/magento2/0af2ad9)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 — 94 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 94 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 — 52
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few files, in the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026)files 46,447 · top5 share 0.006 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 220 · per kloc 0.1 · lines read 2,278,320 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) · late test per code 0.646 · early test per code 0.22 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) · late delete per insert 0.659 · early delete per insert 0.972 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,058 · share 0.499 · with tests 528 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 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 19,055 |
| 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.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthswindow last 24 months · authors 726 · top share less than a quarter |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 198 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 6,223 · window last 24 months · with tracked 6 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 1 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 5,983 · source 20,893 · test ratio 0.286 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026)sampled 26,923 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) · low content share 0.018 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 13,271 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 1 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.013 · reverts 97 · recent commits 7,331 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 5 · commits since 397 · days since lockfile changed 64 |
| 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 1 · ci configs 1 · product files 14,955 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.101 · merges 456 · long lived 46 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.007 · commits 6,523 · over 2000 lines 47 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition threshold, in the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026)gap seconds 180 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) · min add ratio 3.0 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 2,296,887 · files 59 · per kloc 0.06 |
| 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 19,055 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | dependencies are substantially pinnedunpinned 0 |
| 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 4 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 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 75 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 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 0 · 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 15 · commits last 90 days 1,063 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 42
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 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.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (11 Aug 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 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.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | 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: 1 record names magento2 with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2026-5603) |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; NVD: 1 record names magento2 with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2026-5603) |
| 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 KXT7-QZ32-CQKY 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/KXT7QZ32CQKY?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: 734.9authenticated: False |
| 113.0s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 154.8s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 41856 |
| 633.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 633.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 1072.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 1072.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 1072.0s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).