c512e06 · 9,696 commits · 8,999 files
Issued 2026-09-28
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Product & Engineering Maturity, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 5 raised something worth a question. 9 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 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 | 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 |
- 16% 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 · adequate · ratings ↑src/modules/ZoomIt/ZoomIt/PanoramaCapture.cpp is 18,049 lines, 322× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 56 lines. 67 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 18,049. 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.
| line-count | src/modules/ZoomIt/ZoomIt/PanoramaCapture.cpp:1 — 18,049 lines (322× median) |
| line-count | src/modules/previewpane/UnitTests-GcodePreviewHandler/HelperFiles/sample_QOI.gcode:1 — 17,167 lines (306× median) |
| line-count | src/modules/previewpane/UnitTests-GcodeThumbnailProvider/HelperFiles/sample_QOI.gcode:1 — 17,167 lines (306× median) |
| line-count | src/modules/previewpane/UnitTests-GcodePreviewHandler/HelperFiles/sample.gcode:1 — 17,161 lines (306× median) |
| line-count | src/modules/previewpane/UnitTests-GcodeThumbnailProvider/HelperFiles/sample.gcode:1 — 17,161 lines (306× 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.
1 model weight file committed directly to git
adequate1 model weight files are stored in git itself, not in LFS, DVC or a model hub. Every clone carries them, the history keeps every version for good, and nothing records which run or data produced them.
| src/modules/ZoomIt/ZoomIt/selfie_segmentation.onnx | src/modules/ZoomIt/ZoomIt/selfie_segmentation.onnx — weights in git |
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 ↑5% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate106 of 2022 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 | 106 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.
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 ↑15% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 593 fixes in the last 24 months, 86 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 | 86 of 593 |
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 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate5 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Apr 2020. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
| src/modules/launcher/Wox.Infrastructure/Alphabet.cs | src/modules/launcher/Wox.Infrastructure/Alphabet.cs — deprecated since Apr 2020 |
| src/modules/launcher/Wox.Plugin/Query.cs | src/modules/launcher/Wox.Plugin/Query.cs — deprecated since Apr 2020 |
| src/modules/launcher/Wox.Infrastructure/StringMatcher.cs | src/modules/launcher/Wox.Infrastructure/StringMatcher.cs — deprecated since Apr 2020 |
| src/modules/launcher/Wox.Infrastructure/FuzzyMatcher.cs | src/modules/launcher/Wox.Infrastructure/FuzzyMatcher.cs — deprecated since Apr 2020 |
| src/modules/launcher/Wox.Infrastructure/MatchOption.cs | src/modules/launcher/Wox.Infrastructure/MatchOption.cs — deprecated since Aug 2020 |
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, v0.101.2684.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v0.101.2652.0. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
| dd65f4017 | tag v0.101.2684.0 |
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 advisory against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-06-09. 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 1 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 0.98.1. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
| CVE-2026-42902 | 2026-06-09: CVE-2026-42902 (high): Improper authorization in Microsoft PowerToys allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally. |
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 structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| logging-scan | searched 6,739 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
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.
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.
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 (doc/devdocs/core/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 672 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 1,325 commits landed in the last year, against 868 the year before (+53%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- 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 (.pipelines/v2/templates/steps-restore-nuget.yml). 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 C# codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run C# in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in src/, installer/, deps/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/microsoft/powertoys/c512e06)If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
Rejection log — 94 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 94 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 68
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 23,619 · top5 share 0.026 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 277 · per kloc 0.27 · lines read 1,044,876 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.146 · early test per code 0.059 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.247 · early delete per insert 0.4 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 4,894 · compat files 0 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 5 |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 9 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 36 · release commits 2 · changelog commits 14 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 12.8 · window last 24 months · authors 672 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 672 · active 12mo 141 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 672 · directories 4 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 672 · one off share 0.643 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 672 · 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 229 |
| 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 16 · joined 16 · regular last year 35 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 205 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 81 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 786 · source 5,486 · test ratio 0.143 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 157 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 9,097 · low content share 0.025 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 80 · with tests 8 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 1,116 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 81 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.004 · reverts 9 · recent commits 2,198 |
| 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 4 · ci configs 81 · product files 4,894 |
| 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 7d8f7aa..7e22f26 · bursts explained 2 · largest net added 61,217 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 132 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 27.69 · repeat share 0.06 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 6,398 · write once share 0.428 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,051,102 · files 70 · per kloc 0.14 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 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 6,739 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | dependencies are substantially pinnedunpinned 0 |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 2,959,589 |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 64 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 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.known_vulnerabilities | no locked dependency has a published advisory; not assessed for C and C++ package managersadvisories 0 · dependencies 111 · high or critical 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 4 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 17 · added in two years 5 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 2.0 · days since last tag -1 · commits last 90 days 371 |
| 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 — 26
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for C#: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 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.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for C#, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 1 published advisory affects the surveyed code: its version is only known to be at least 0.98.1 |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 4DN9-RV8X-DNCA at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 105 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/4DN9RV8XDNCA?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-28 · shown | borehole 0.7.5 | 11 | adequate |
15 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 15 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | authenticated: False |
| 26.9s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 39.6s | read the git history | commits: 9696tracked files: 8999 |
| 237.8s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 237.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 374.2s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 374.2s | deleting the working copy |
Total 374.2s ·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).