47bacd0 · 1,094 commits · 7,212 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity, Organization & Key-Person Risk.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 11 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 3 November 2026.
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | strong | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 47% 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
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑packages/admin/src/get-route-map.tsx is 2,503 lines, 73× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 34 lines. 11 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 2,503. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | packages/admin/src/get-route-map.tsx:1 — 2,503 lines (73× median) |
| line-count | apps/storefront/src/icons/index.tsx:1 — 2,041 lines (60× median) |
| line-count | packages/admin/src/lib/data/countries.ts:1 — 1,768 lines (52× median) |
| line-count | packages/dashboard-shared/src/lib/data/countries.ts:1 — 1,768 lines (52× median) |
| line-count | packages/admin/src/pages/orders/order-detail/components/order-summary-section/order-summary-section.tsx:1 — 1,374 lines (40× 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
adequate212 test files against 4,213 source files (5.0%). 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 | 212 test files / 4,213 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.
7% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate52 of 746 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| git log --numstat | 52 commits over 2,000 lines |
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.
Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (e2e-tests/playwright.config.ts). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| e2e-tests/playwright.config.ts | e2e-tests/playwright.config.ts:11 — test retry |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 1,024 non-merge commits among 16 authors; across all history, more than half of 1,024. This is the single most expensive thing to discover after closing, and the repository cannot tell you whether that person is part of the transaction.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 1,024 commits; bus factor 1; 16 authors |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 of 6 major areas has only ever had one author
adequateAcross 16 contributors, 1 substantial top-level area has been touched by exactly one person. The headline bus factor does not show this: a team can look well spread in aggregate and still have subsystems that stop moving the day one person stops working on them. For these areas, ask who else can change them today.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| sole-author | e2e-tests/ — 1,861 lines added |
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 ↑No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · strong · ratings ↑371 dependencies float, and no lockfile is committed
adequateDependency versions are declared as ranges and no lockfile is committed, so a build today does not necessarily produce what a build last month produced. That matters twice over in a transaction: the thing being bought cannot be reproduced exactly, and a compromised upstream release arrives without anyone choosing to take it.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| unpinned | apps/admin-test/package.json:12 — * |
| unpinned | apps/admin-test/package.json:13 — ^18.3.1 |
| unpinned | apps/admin-test/package.json:14 — ^18.3.1 |
| unpinned | apps/admin-test/package.json:18 — * |
| unpinned | apps/admin-test/package.json:19 — * |
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.
7 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate7 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/storefront/src/app/[locale]/(main)/categories/[category]/page.tsx | apps/storefront/src/app/[locale]/(main)/categories/[category]/page.tsx:130 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/storefront/src/app/[locale]/(main)/categories/[category]/page.tsx | apps/storefront/src/app/[locale]/(main)/categories/[category]/page.tsx:148 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/storefront/src/app/[locale]/(main)/categories/page.tsx | apps/storefront/src/app/[locale]/(main)/categories/page.tsx:90 — 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.
102 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.
| apps/docs/images/user-guides/vendor/stores | apps/docs/images/user-guides/vendor/stores — 14 tracked files, no licence file |
| apps/docs/references/api/vendor/members | apps/docs/references/api/vendor/members — 3 tracked files, no licence file |
| apps/docs/references/api/vendor/orders | apps/docs/references/api/vendor/orders — 11 tracked files, no licence file |
| apps/docs/references/api/vendor/payout-accounts | apps/docs/references/api/vendor/payout-accounts — 4 tracked files, no licence file |
| apps/docs/references/api/vendor/payouts | apps/docs/references/api/vendor/payouts — 2 tracked files, no licence file |
| apps/docs/references/api/vendor/product-attributes | apps/docs/references/api/vendor/product-attributes — 2 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.
7 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 4 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-11-04. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 2 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 2.4.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 16 records name mercur with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2000-0198, CVE-2000-0239, CVE-2000-0318, …).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| GHSA-r7gm-rgf8-5q8m | 2026-11-04: GHSA-r7gm-rgf8-5q8m (moderate), fixed in 2.4.1: Vendor service-zone GET route missing seller ownership check |
| GHSA-rcjg-5cvg-wwvj | 2026-11-04: GHSA-rcjg-5cvg-wwvj (high), fixed in 2.3.7: Cross-vendor inventory-level write/delete via the top-level `location-levels/batch` route (no seller-ownership check) |
| GHSA-mhch-gq7f-v5p7 | 2026-11-04: GHSA-mhch-gq7f-v5p7 (critical), fixed in 2.4.1: Mercur 2.3.6 vendor API — cross-seller authorization: field traversal to invite-token takeover + bank details (Critical); unscoped /vendor/products/:id reads an |
| GHSA-w4vq-6jvh-cfpg | 2026-10-12: GHSA-w4vq-6jvh-cfpg (high), fixed in 2.3.7: Seller promotions lose their seller scope on cart refresh, discounting other sellers' items |
| GHSA-qc6m-3g2c-xv4v | 2026-09-17: GHSA-qc6m-3g2c-xv4v (moderate), fixed in 2.2.0: Vendor variant media route missing seller ownership check allows cross-seller image tampering |
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 ↑Sends usage data to telemetry.mercurjs.com by default
adequatepackages/cli/src/telemetry/index.ts sends to telemetry.mercurjs.com, and packages/cli/src/telemetry/store.ts 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.
| packages/cli/src/telemetry/index.ts | packages/cli/src/telemetry/index.ts:10 — reports to telemetry.mercurjs.com |
| packages/cli/src/telemetry/store.ts | packages/cli/src/telemetry/store.ts:13 — 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
3 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 The tree carries design documentation (docs/ARCHITECTURE.md and 2 more). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured One contributor authored more than half of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- 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 A roadmap file is in the tree (ROADMAP.md, last changed February 2026). A file is not a plan. Does it match the roadmap in the data room, and has the team delivered the last one it wrote?
- 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- 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- 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. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in packages/, apps/, templates/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 69% of added lines came through AI-declared commits. Does your organisation have a policy on inheriting and maintaining that code, and does your engineering team's tooling match how it was produced?
- 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/mercurjs/mercur/47bacd0)If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
Rejection log — 93 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 93 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 59
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 13,948 · top5 share 0.041 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 58 · per kloc 0.11 · lines read 550,928 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.195 · early test per code 0.058 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.257 · early delete per insert 0.253 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 309 · share 0.275 · with tests 85 |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 0 · columns added last year 10 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 4,570 |
| 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.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | a healthy share of contributors committed more than onceshare 0.438 · authors 16 · one commit authors 7 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 16 · top share more than half · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 16 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 13 · window last 24 months · with tracked 45 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 6 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 281 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 1,081 · low content share 0.003 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 6 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 12 · test files 394 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 6 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 2 · recent commits 1,024 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 10 · ci configs 6 · product files 5,888 |
| 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 6,494 · share of insertions 0.0037 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 27.29 · repeat share 0.022 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 555,380 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 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 4,570 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 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 1,604,933 |
| 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 25 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 1 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 49 · irreversible 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 1 |
| 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 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 2,117 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the historylive 1 · retired 1 · flags seen 2 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 159 · added in two years 159 · removed within 60 days 11 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.5 · days since last tag -2 · commits last 90 days 250 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release, v2.4.1, was made after the surveyed commit on the branch surveyedelsewhere 7 · on branch 22 · tags in window 30 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 34
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | history too short to distinguish active from historical contributors |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | too little history |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | no lockfile to date |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 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.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no lockfile this survey can read, or a collector older than 0.4.0 |
| 05.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.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; OSV npm @mercurjs/admin (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @mercurjs/cli (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @mercurjs/client (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @mercurjs/core (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm create-mercur-app (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @mercurjs/dashboard-sdk (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @mercurjs/dashboard-shared (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @mercurjs/types (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @mercurjs/magento2-connector-plugin (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @mercurjs/stripe-connector-plugin (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 16 records name mercur with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2000-0198, CVE-2000-0239, CVE-2000-0318, …) |
| 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 2SP9-C43Q-1K0X 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/2SP9C43Q1K0X?via=badge)
5 pieces of evidence on this report quote 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: 217.8authenticated: False |
| 15.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 21.6s | read the git history | commits: 1094tracked files: 7212 |
| 125.5s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 125.5s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 207.1s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 207.1s | deleting the working copy |
Total 207.1s ·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).