Borehole · Risk register · free tier

mattermost-community/focalboard

Free reading: not for reliance

a84bbb6 · 3,646 commits · 1,689 files
Issued 2026-10-23

The repository says it is no longer maintained.

103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 17 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.

What matters most

04.60 The repository says it is no longer maintained

What the repository says about itself

04.60 The repository says it is no longer maintained README.md:2

Worth checking first

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 25 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 19 high or critical in what ships

Published under today's rules. The verification code attests to this reading as it was stored. This page differs from it as follows.

Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
The file and line of 1 credential-shaped match is withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.

	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	adequate
06	Observability & Operations	adequate
07	Fit with the Acquirer	not assessable

strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository

Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating

0% of the code standing today was written in AI-declared commits

0% of lines still in the tree 0 of 358,591 0% of lines ever added these differ when early hand-written code has since been replaced

0/3,254 commits declaring an agent

confidence: moderate

27% 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 1,549 of 1,549 counted files

378,895 lines excluded as lockfiles, vendored or generated.

This is a lower bound. It counts what the repository declares. Undeclared AI authorship is invisible here, and a single rebase removes the trailers this rests on. Absence of a declaration is absence of disclosure, not absence of AI authorship.

Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance

01 · strong · ratings ↑

A note that does not affect this rating

01.6

server/services/store/storetests/blocks.go is 1,350 lines, 18× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 72 lines. 7 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 1,350. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.

A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.

Evidence

line-count	`server/services/store/storetests/blocks.go:1` — 1,350 lines (18× median)
line-count	`server/services/store/mattermostauthlayer/mattermostauthlayer.go:1` — 1,345 lines (18× median)
line-count	`webapp/src/mutator.ts:1` — 1,225 lines (17× median)
line-count	`server/services/store/storetests/boards.go:1` — 1,202 lines (16× median)
line-count	`server/services/store/sqlstore/blocks.go:1` — 1,101 lines (15× 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 ↑

03.27

Regular contributors fell from 5 to 0 in a year

adequate

4 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 0 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.

Evidence

regular contributors by year

5 then 0; 4 stopped committing, 0 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.

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · adequate · ratings ↑

04.60

The repository says it is no longer maintained

adequate worth checking first

Its own README says so on line 2: "This repository is currently not maintained. If you're interested in becoming a maintainer please [let". Everything else in this report describes code its maintainers have said they will not carry forward. A buyer inherits the maintenance.

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 README.md:2 settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.

Evidence

README.md README.md:2 — This repository is currently not maintained. If you're interested in becoming a maintainer please [let

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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

04.5

Effort is shifting from building to rewriting

adequate

Deleted lines per line added rose from 0.49 to 3.60 between the first and second halves of this history. Rework is normal and often healthy, but a rising ratio means an increasing share of the team's time is spent replacing code that already exists rather than building what does not. Whether that is deliberate repayment or churn is a question for the team.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

deletions-per-insertion

first half 0.49, second half 3.60 (split 2023-02-09)

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.

04.17

2 pinned runtimes are past end of life

adequate

The code is pinned to Node.js 16 (end of life 2023-09-11); Node.js 20 (end of life 2026-04-30). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2023-09-11. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

docker/Dockerfile	`docker/Dockerfile` — Node.js 16, end of life 2023-09-11
webapp/.nvmrc	`webapp/.nvmrc` — Node.js 20, end of life 2026-04-30

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · adequate · ratings ↑

05.1

1 credential-shaped string committed to the tree

adequate

Matches for Google API key appear in tracked files outside test and fixture paths. They stay in the history even after they leave the tree, so what matters is whether each was rotated. The code cannot tell whether any of them is live, and that decides whether this matters: none sits in production configuration, and none is in a format its provider keeps for live keys. Is any of these live? Show that each was rotated after it was committed, and when. Only Google API keys matched. Those are often public by design, in a browser app's Firebase or Maps configuration; the question is whether each is restricted to the app's domains and APIs.

Evidence

Google API key	Google API key pattern matched
	File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.

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.

05.26

25 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 19 high or critical in what ships

adequate worth checking first

25 of 532 locked dependencies match 123 published advisories in OSV, 29 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.

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 server/go.mod and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.

Evidence

server/go.mod	`server/go.mod` — github.com/mattermost/mattermost/server/v8 v8.0.0-20240529104128-9d30a62c9471: GHSA-3x39-62h4-f8j6 (critical); pinned to a commit or a branch, so whether it has the fix needs the dependency's own source
server/go.mod	`server/go.mod` — golang.org/x/crypto v0.23.0: GHSA-5cgq-3rg8-m6cv (critical), fixed in 0.52.0
webapp/package-lock.json	`webapp/package-lock.json` — decompress 4.2.1: GHSA-hrh2-vp3x-79xf (critical)

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.

05.49

The production build publishes source maps

adequate

The build configuration emits source maps for production, so the original source, with its comments and structure, is downloadable by every visitor. Upload them to an error tracker and keep them off the public server instead.

Evidence

webapp/webpack.dev.js	`webapp/webpack.dev.js:11` — source maps in a production build
webapp/webpack.editor.js	`webapp/webpack.editor.js:14` — source maps in a production build

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

05.51

The app allows plain HTTP to any server

adequate

The app's manifest allows unencrypted HTTP app-wide (NSAllowsArbitraryLoads, or cleartext traffic permitted), rather than for named domains. Anything sent over plain HTTP can be read on the network, and enterprise security reviews ask about it. Some apps need it by nature (a podcast or feed reader fetches whatever URL a feed gives), so ask which case this is.

Evidence

mac/Focalboard/Info.plist mac/Focalboard/Info.plist:33 — cleartext allowed app-wide

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.

05.65

2 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical

adequate

The newest was published on 2026-04-03. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries.

Evidence

CVE-2026-25773	2026-04-03: CVE-2026-25773 (high): UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED Focalboard version 8.0 fails to sanitize category IDs before incorporating them into dynamic SQL statements when reordering cate
CVE-2026-28736	2026-04-03: CVE-2026-28736 (moderate): UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED Focalboard version 8.0 fails to validate file ownership when serving uploaded files. This allows an authenticated attacker who k

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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

1 third-party CI action is referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day; 1 step pipes a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.

A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.

Evidence

.github/workflows/dev-release.yml	`.github/workflows/dev-release.yml:118` — action pinned by tag
.github/workflows/lint-server.yml	`.github/workflows/lint-server.yml:38` — download piped into a shell

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

05.13

2 outbound calls can wait forever

adequate

2 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.

Evidence

server/client/client.go	`server/client/client.go:86` — outbound call without a timeout
server/services/webhook/webhook.go	`server/services/webhook/webhook.go:26` — 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.

05.20

2 SQL statements built from strings

adequate

2 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

server/services/store/sqlstore/util.go	`server/services/store/sqlstore/util.go:88` — SQL built from a string
server/services/store/sqlstore/util.go	`server/services/store/sqlstore/util.go:94` — SQL built from a string

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.

05.48

10 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it

adequate

10 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.

Evidence

webapp/src/components/blocksEditor/blocks/checkbox/index.tsx	`webapp/src/components/blocksEditor/blocks/checkbox/index.tsx:39` — HTML from a variable
webapp/src/components/blocksEditor/blocks/h1/index.tsx	`webapp/src/components/blocksEditor/blocks/h1/index.tsx:22` — HTML from a variable
webapp/src/components/blocksEditor/blocks/h2/index.tsx	`webapp/src/components/blocksEditor/blocks/h2/index.tsx:22` — 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.

Observability & Operations

06 · adequate · ratings ↑

06.8

One request cannot be followed through the logs

adequate

Nothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.

Evidence

request ids

no request id, correlation id or tracing found

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

Notes that do not affect this rating

06.9

No error reporter is wired in

adequate

Nothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.

A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.

Evidence

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.

06.18

3 of 6 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`

adequate

3 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

docker-testing/docker-compose-postgres.yml	`docker-testing/docker-compose-postgres.yml:19` — image without a version
docker/docker-compose-db-nginx.yml	`docker/docker-compose-db-nginx.yml:26` — image without a version
docker/docker-compose-db-nginx.yml	`docker/docker-compose-db-nginx.yml:37` — 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.

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

10 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. See the tiers.

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 1,267 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it? Answer lives in: The team01.38
Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product? Answer lives in: Your architects, with the product roadmap01.39
Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now? Answer lives in: The team's reasoning at the time01.40

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. Answer lives in: The code host's pull request data02.32
Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic? Answer lives in: The issue tracker: backlog, sprint history, estimate accuracy02.38
How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from? Answer lives in: Tickets, chat and postmortems02.37

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · partial coverage

measured 255 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing? Answer lives in: The deal terms03.29
measured experiments/, import/, mac/ and more (less than a quarter of the files) have 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? Answer lives in: The team03.22
Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure? Answer lives in: The team; review history only suggests candidates03.28
Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors? Answer lives in: Recruiting data and the org chart03.30
Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands? Answer lives in: HR data03.31
Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time. Answer lives in: Interviews and on-call history03.14
Does the team want to stay after close? Answer lives in: Interviews03.32
How are decisions made and disagreements resolved? Answer lives in: Time with the team03.33

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · minimal coverage

Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline? Answer lives in: The data room and the team's record of estimates04.32
Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it? Answer lives in: Budget and roadmap decisions04.31
Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story? Answer lives in: Revenue, customer and churn data04.33

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · partial coverage

measured 05.1 and 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. Answer lives in: The provider's console and audit log05.38
measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it? Answer lives in: The security owner05.43
What has actually broken, how often, and how badly? Answer lives in: Ticketing and chat05.41
What did external testing find, and was it fixed? Answer lives in: Reports in the data room05.42
What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence? Answer lives in: Audit reports; policy files in the tree are not evidence05.44

Observability & Operations

06 · partial coverage

measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed? Answer lives in: The operations team06.19
measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire? Answer lives in: The alerting tool and the on-call rota06.10
Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered? Answer lives in: Pager history and dashboard logs06.29
Are the service-level objectives actually met? Answer lives in: Production metrics06.30
Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off? Answer lives in: Pager exports and interviews06.31
What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there? Answer lives in: Cloud billing and capacity plans06.32

Fit with the Acquirer

07 · none coverage

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.

This is primarily a TypeScript codebase, with Go alongside (30% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in webapp/, server/, experiments/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile.build and 6 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first? 07.2
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? Answer lives in: Your architecture07.11
What will integration cost, and in what order? Answer lives in: The engagement07.12
Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom? Answer lives in: Your org design07.13
Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign? Answer lives in: Deal terms07.14
Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors? Answer lives in: Customer contracts07.15

Request a human assessment Download JSON Badge PDF

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.

[![Borehole](/badge/mattermost-community/focalboard.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/mattermost-community/focalboard/a84bbb6)

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 — 86 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 86 signals that ran and did not fire

Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.

Looked, and found nothing — 64

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 2,529 · top5 share 0.038
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 53 · per kloc 0.34 · lines read 155,910
04.dependency_sprawl	direct dependency counts are unremarkable
04.test_growth	test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.641 · early test per code 0.418
04.compat_layers	little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 682 · compat files 1
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 3
06.structured_logging	a structured logging library is referencedmatches 2
06.healthcheck_presence	a health or readiness check is defined
06.telemetry_depth	the service is visible in more than one way
06.usage_reporting_default	the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 6 · settings off 4
06.environment_branching	environment differences live in configurationsites 5
06.migrate_on_start	migrations do not run at container start
03.contributor_concentration	no single contributor dominates the whole historyyears 4.7 · window whole history · authors 255
03.active_contributors	nobody committed in the trailing yearall time 255 · active 12mo 0
03.knowledge_silos	every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 255 · directories 5
03.drive_by_contributors	an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 255 · one off share 0.514
03.contributor_attrition	no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 255 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than three years ago
03.critical_path_ownership	more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 22
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 9 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0
02.ci_presence	CI configuration is present in the working treecount 7
02.test_presence	tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 243 · source 923 · test ratio 0.263
02.release_cadence	tags are presenttags 168
02.conventional_commits	commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 3,254 · low content share 0.02
02.branch_protection_hints	process scaffolding is present in the repository
02.ci_runs_tests	CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 7 · with tests 1
02.skipped_tests	few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 248
02.ci_test_gating	no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 7
02.dependency_update_cadence	dependencies move with the codelockfiles 10 · commits since 6 · days since lockfile changed 308
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 9 · ci configs 7 · product files 682
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 12,255 · share of insertions 0.0163
01.message_uniformity	commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.22 · repeat share 0.174
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,218 · write once share 0.386
01.duplicated_blocks	little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0093 · product files 680 · distinct blocks 51,599
01.swallowed_errors	errors are rarely thrown awayloc 157,043 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0
01.build_reproducibility	every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 3
01.unfinished_migration	no language migration is stalled halfway
01.weights_in_git	no model weights are committedfiles 0
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.container_runs_as_root	every shipped Dockerfile drops to a non-root user or builds on a non-root base imagedockerfiles 1
05.secrets_management_pattern	no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 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.public_env_secret	only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0
05.signing_material	no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 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.dependency_churn	few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 332 · added in two years 16 · 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 4.5 · days since last tag 865 · commits last 90 days 0
04.release_branch	the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 45 · on branch 7 · tags in window 52
03.single_maintainer	no file says one person maintains itstatements 0
05.project_exploited	no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0

Could not conclude, or did not apply — 22

Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.

Signal	Why
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
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.release_markers	fewer than 100 commits in the last year
06.feature_flags	no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere
03.second_contributor_attrition	the repository itself is quiet
03.bus_factor_trend	fewer than three active years to compare
02.revert_share	too few recent commits to judge how often change is undone
02.long_lived_branches	too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none)
02.commit_size	too few recent commits
01.notebook_outputs	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.migration_reversibility	too few migrations to judge
05.resource_limits	no Kubernetes workload manifests
05.dataset_provenance	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.license_copyleft_inherited	no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here
05.license_manifest_conflict	no packaging manifest states a licence
04.flags_accumulating	few or no feature flags in the history
04.deprecations_lingering	few deprecations have outlived two years

Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter EQB9-ZKZF-PDNM 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.

[![Borehole reading, not a certification](https://borehole.dev/badge/mattermost-community/focalboard/a84bbb6.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/EQB9ZKZFPDNM?via=badge)

Quoted evidence

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.

Where this scan ran

This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.

What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.

What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps

Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.

At	Step	Detail
0.0s	read repository metadata from the GitHub API	size mb: 57.8authenticated: False
5.1s	cloned the repository to a temporary directory	depth: full
8.2s	read the git history	commits: 3646tracked files: 1689
110.8s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Trueread working tree: False
110.8s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
138.5s	kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
138.5s	deleting the working copy

Total 138.5s ·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).

BOREHOLE 0.7.15 DETERMINISTIC LAYER · NO MODEL CALLSREAD ON BOREHOLE'S SERVER · CLONE DELETED TAKEDOWNCONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPOSITORY? YOUR RIGHTS