c7a5afe · 7,196 commits · 5,032 files
Issued 2026-10-01
AGPL-3.0 since 2023-06-28: open source; offering it over a network counts as distributing it, so a hosted product's changes must be published.
102 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 15 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.60 AGPL-3.0 since 2023-06-28: open source; offering it over a network counts as distributing it, so a hosted product's changes must be published
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 05.60 Relicensed: Apache-2.0 → AGPL-3.0 (2023-06-28) LICENSE.txt
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 6 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 9 high or critical in what ships
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 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 | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 12% 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
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`
adequate1 of 9 `FROM` lines in product Dockerfiles name an image without a version, or with `latest`. Each build pulls whatever the registry serves that day, so the image that ships can change without a commit, and last month's build cannot be reproduced. Pin a version, or a digest.
| deployments/aio/community/Dockerfile | deployments/aio/community/Dockerfile:2 — base image without a version |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
apps/api/plane/api/views/issue.py is 2,603 lines, 41× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 63 lines. 16 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 2,603. 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 305 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | apps/api/plane/api/views/issue.py:1 — 2,603 lines (41× median) |
| line-count | apps/api/plane/db/migrations/0001_initial.py:1 — 2,491 lines (39× median) |
| line-count | apps/web/public/workbox-9f2f79cf.js:1 — 2,480 lines (39× median) |
| line-count | apps/api/plane/db/migrations/0077_draftissue_cycle_user_timezone_project_user_timezone_and_more.py:1 — 2,037 lines (32× median) |
| line-count | apps/api/plane/db/migrations/0046_label_sort_order_alter_analyticview_created_by_and_more.py:1 — 2,009 lines (31× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · adequate · ratings ↑Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase
adequate124 test files against 3,730 source files (3.3%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.
| test-file-ratio | 124 test files / 3,730 source 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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑7% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 1152 fixes in the last 24 months, 77 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| fix commits touching tests | 77 of 1152 |
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.
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v1.4.2, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v1.2.3. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
| 5f7d92784 | tag v1.4.2 |
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.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑1 Dockerfile runs 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 | deployments/aio/community/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 build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate8 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. 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.
| .github/workflows/build-branch.yml | .github/workflows/build-branch.yml:168 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/build-branch.yml | .github/workflows/build-branch.yml:196 — action pinned by tag |
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.
24 of 128 migrations cannot be rolled back
adequate24 schema migrations (19%) have no working way back: an empty `downgrade`, a `down` that does nothing, or a data migration with no reverse. A bad deploy that includes one is recovered from a backup, not reverted. Ask when a restore was last rehearsed.
| apps/api/plane/db/migrations/0035_auto_20230704_2225.py | apps/api/plane/db/migrations/0035_auto_20230704_2225.py:29 — migration with no way back |
| apps/api/plane/db/migrations/0037_issue_archived_at_project_archive_in_and_more.py | apps/api/plane/db/migrations/0037_issue_archived_at_project_archive_in_and_more.py:86 — migration with no way back |
| apps/api/plane/db/migrations/0038_auto_20230720_1505.py | apps/api/plane/db/migrations/0038_auto_20230720_1505.py:31 — migration with no way back |
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.
6 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 9 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first6 of 1,418 locked dependencies match 28 published advisories in OSV, 11 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 pnpm-lock.yaml settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — axios 1.18.1: GHSA-3pq3-5fj3-cg6v (high), fixed in 1.20.0 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — undici 7.29.0: GHSA-rfgv-xxqx-mfg5 (high), fixed in 7.29.1 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — brace-expansion 5.0.9: GHSA-6j4f-fj2g-mc7p (high), fixed in 5.0.10; a development dependency |
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.
Relicensed: Apache-2.0 → AGPL-3.0 (2023-06-28)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). The latest terms restrict what users, hosts or a buyer may do in ways the earlier ones did not. Code taken under the old terms stays under them, so both matter in diligence.
| 6037fed3f | LICENSE.txt — Apache-2.0 from 2022-11-19 |
| 6394f517a | LICENSE.txt — AGPL-3.0 from 2023-06-28 |
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.
86 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 44 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. GHSA-fpx8-73gf-7x73 (high) affects 1.4.2, the newest release, and not the surveyed commit: its fix is in the surveyed commit, and whether a release cut elsewhere carries it could not be told. Answer lives in: the version you run. The record is incomplete: NVD: 107 records name plane with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2022-28199, CVE-2023-50913, CVE-2023-53864, …).
| GHSA-64p2-pmc9-4fc7 | 2026-09-28: GHSA-64p2-pmc9-4fc7 (high), fixed in 1.4.0: Broken object level authorization allows cross-project read of page versions and related records |
| GHSA-wcc5-qgfr-8g9c | 2026-09-28: GHSA-wcc5-qgfr-8g9c (moderate), fixed in 1.4.0: Workspace cycle and module endpoints missing project-membership filter expose private project metadata to any workspace member |
| GHSA-w2vf-m9x9-mvmc | 2026-09-28: GHSA-w2vf-m9x9-mvmc (moderate), fixed in 1.4.0: Cross-project member roster IDOR in ProjectMemberListCreateAPIEndpoint (missing project scope on reads) |
| GHSA-g49r-p85q-qq2w | 2026-09-28: GHSA-g49r-p85q-qq2w (moderate), fixed in 1.4.0: Cross-project page-version disclosure via project-agnostic page lookup in ProjectPagePermission (PageVersionEndpoint) |
| GHSA-cjph-cgm5-8pw8 | 2026-09-28: GHSA-cjph-cgm5-8pw8 (moderate), fixed in 1.4.0: Cross-project asset disclosure: a workspace GUEST reads any project's file via WorkspaceFileAssetEndpoint (incomplete fix of CVE-2026-46558) |
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 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate5 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.
| apps/api/plane/app/views/external/base.py | apps/api/plane/app/views/external/base.py:242 — outbound call without a timeout |
| apps/api/plane/authentication/provider/oauth/gitea.py | apps/api/plane/authentication/provider/oauth/gitea.py:120 — outbound call without a timeout |
| apps/api/plane/authentication/provider/oauth/github.py | apps/api/plane/authentication/provider/oauth/github.py:112 — 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.
9 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate9 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.
| apps/web/hooks/use-parse-editor-content.ts | apps/web/hooks/use-parse-editor-content.ts:80 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/editor/src/extensions/table/plugins/insert-handlers/utils.ts | packages/editor/src/extensions/table/plugins/insert-handlers/utils.ts:38 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/editor/src/extensions/table/plugins/insert-handlers/utils.ts | packages/editor/src/extensions/table/plugins/insert-handlers/utils.ts:136 — 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.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑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.
| 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.
Sends usage data to telemetry.plane.so by default
adequateapps/api/plane/utils/otlp_endpoints.py sends to telemetry.plane.so, and apps/admin/components/instance/setup-form.tsx leaves reporting on as shipped. Every installation reports to the vendor unless its operator turns this off. For a buyer running it inside their own product, that is an outbound data flow to a third party: ask what is sent, how often, and whether the buyer's customers were told.
| apps/api/plane/utils/otlp_endpoints.py | apps/api/plane/utils/otlp_endpoints.py:8 — reports to telemetry.plane.so |
| apps/admin/components/instance/setup-form.tsx | apps/admin/components/instance/setup-form.tsx:59 — the reporting setting is on by default |
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 4,883 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 172 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 772 commits landed in the last year, against 1,494 the year before (-48%). 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 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 Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (deployments/cli/community/restore-airgapped.sh). Has a restore ever been rehearsed, and how long did it take?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a TypeScript codebase, with Python alongside (16% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in apps/, packages/, deployments/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (apps/admin/Dockerfile.admin and 15 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/makeplane/plane/c7a5afe)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 — 87 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 87 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 — 76
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 26,919 · top5 share 0.007 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 86 · per kloc 0.16 · lines read 547,239 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.079 · early test per code 0.009 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.744 · early delete per insert 0.656 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 1 · columns added last year 18 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.003 · code files 3,606 · compat files 11 |
| 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 6 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 3 |
| 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 4 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 10 · floating 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 15 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 8 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 3.9 · window last 24 months · authors 172 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 172 · active 12mo 71 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 172 · directories 3 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 172 · one off share 0.616 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 172 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 101 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 6 · joined 5 · regular last year 25 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 56 · window last 24 months · with tracked 10 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 10 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 64 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 6,707 · low content share 0.0 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 127 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 10 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 3 · recent commits 2,275 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 3 · 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 18 · ci configs 10 · product files 3,606 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.296 · merges 27 · long lived 8 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.033 · commits 2,130 · over 2000 lines 70 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was merged pull requests, each developed and reviewed on its own branch (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays itlargest commits e9a0eb8..81f6562 · bursts explained 5 · largest net added 3,387 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 16,848 · share of insertions 0.01 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 19.68 · repeat share 0.016 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,227 · write once share 0.412 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 551,674 · files 17 · 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 4,470 |
| 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 1,569,951 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 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.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.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 2 |
| 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 1 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on AGPL-3.0license AGPL-3.0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0 |
| 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.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 16 |
| 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.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 7.5 · days since last tag 39 · commits last 90 days 131 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 11
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 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 |
| 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 EEH5-2HWJ-TZ48 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/EEH52HWJTZ48?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-01 · shown | borehole 0.7.9 | 19 | adequate |
4 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 19 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 19 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 19 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 19 | 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 | size mb: 212.1authenticated: False |
| 17.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 27.7s | read the git history | commits: 7196tracked files: 5032 |
| 165.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 165.6s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 247.1s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 247.1s | deleting the working copy |
Total 247.1s ·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).