8a12400 · 3,984 commits · 2,883 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity. People was not rated.
101 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 2 raised something worth a question. 9 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 23 October 2026.
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- 2 findings about one contributor are withheld: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits; a buyer of this report reads them.
- The file and line of 3 credential-shaped matches are 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 | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 40% 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
- commit 3247bd7a6 says the project removes AI co-author trailers, so the declared share is a floor of unknown distance
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 11 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · adequate · ratings ↑169 tests are switched off
adequate169 skip markers across 22 of 179 test files. Each is a failure somebody chose to stop seeing; the question is whether anyone is tracking them.
| crates/nostr/tests/nostr_integration.rs | crates/nostr/tests/nostr_integration.rs:8 — skipped test |
| crates/nostr/tests/nostr_integration.rs | crates/nostr/tests/nostr_integration.rs:38 — skipped test |
| crates/nostr/tests/nostr_integration.rs | crates/nostr/tests/nostr_integration.rs:50 — skipped test |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them. What a person adds here.
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 · adequate · ratings ↑2 credential-shaped strings committed to the tree
adequateMatches for Slack token 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. 1 other match set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
| Slack token | 2 cited: Slack token 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.
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 credential-shaped string exists in the history
adequateMatches for Slack token were committed at some point across 3,496 commits examined. Some are still in the working tree. What matters is whether each was rotated after it was committed. 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| history | Slack token pattern added here |
| 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.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate19 steps pipe 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.
| Dockerfile | Dockerfile:45 — 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.
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.
55 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 7 high or critical
adequate55 of 1,914 locked dependencies match 108 published advisories in OSV, 7 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — wasmtime 36.0.9: GHSA-897f-g5gm-fmxm (critical), fixed in 36.0.19 |
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — zip 2.4.2: GHSA-m665-v7pm-7grj (critical), fixed in 9.0.5 |
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — lopdf 0.38.0: GHSA-6fj4-rcr3-r7rr (high), fixed in 0.42.0 |
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.
10 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate10 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.
| crates/web/ui/src/chat-ui.ts | crates/web/ui/src/chat-ui.ts:123 — HTML from a variable |
| crates/web/ui/src/chat-ui.ts | crates/web/ui/src/chat-ui.ts:152 — HTML from a variable |
| crates/web/ui/src/pages/ChatPage.tsx | crates/web/ui/src/pages/ChatPage.tsx:877 — 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.
1 vendored component 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.
| crates/web/src/assets/js/vendor/luxon.mjs | crates/web/src/assets/js/vendor/luxon.mjs — 1 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.
3 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-08. 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 0.10.18. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
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.
| CVE-2026-86808 | 2026-09-08: CVE-2026-86808 (moderate): A security vulnerability has been detected in moltis-org moltis up to 20260818.10. The affected element is the function vault_unlock_handler/vault_recovery_hand |
| GHSA-88m8-m5rv-pxrg | 2026-09-02: GHSA-88m8-m5rv-pxrg (high), fixed in >= 20260902.03: Session keys can collide into the same sandbox container and persisted home |
| GHSA-2p93-cxhg-rc7q | 2026-09-02: GHSA-2p93-cxhg-rc7q (critical), fixed in 20260902.02: Remote code execution via unsanitized shell command in node-host [VULN-191] |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 7 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. The findings below are what it could still read.
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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| 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
8 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 (crates/skills/src/assets/creative/ascii-video/references/architecture.md). 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 coverageNot rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them.
- Which of the people who wrote this are 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- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 05.1 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.
- 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 coverageNot rated: only 7 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- 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 Rust codebase, with TypeScript alongside (17% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Rust in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in crates/, website/, apps/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 2 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/moltis-org/moltis/8a12400)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 — 92 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 92 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 — 60
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 3,899 · top5 share 0.067 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 30 · per kloc 0.04 · lines read 800,864 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,663 · share 0.227 · with tests 377 |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 0 · columns added last year 30 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 1,542 · compat files 2 |
| 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 159 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 4 · settings off 3 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 208 · release commits 5 · changelog commits 512 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 475 · window last 24 months · with tracked 76 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 8 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 796 · source 1,707 · test ratio 0.466 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 208 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 3,509 · low content share 0.002 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 8 · with tests 4 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 8 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 2 · recent commits 3,395 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 6 · commits since 7 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 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 8 · product files 1,542 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.026 · merges 233 · long lived 6 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.049 · commits 2,832 · over 2000 lines 140 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 6,267 · share of insertions 0.0039 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 15.53 · repeat share 0.184 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,272 · write once share 0.526 |
| 01.oversized_modules | no module is an outlier against this codebase's own normlargest 1,773 · threshold 2,020 · median lines 202 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0194 · product files 1,535 · distinct blocks 362,526 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 2 |
| 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.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.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 17 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 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.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 1 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 316 · added in two years 316 · removed within 60 days 6 |
| 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 0.0 · days since last tag 10 · commits last 90 days 157 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 6 · on branch 99 · tags in window 105 |
| 03.single_maintainer | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 32
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | history too short to compare code and test growth |
| 04.churn_trend | history too short to read a churn trend |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Rust: its logging setup is not read |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.correlation_ids | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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.environment_branching | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 2 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version is only known to be at least 0.10.18 |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter NNYN-M5AZ-SAAF 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/NNYNM5AZSAAF?via=badge)
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 311.3authenticated: False |
| 42.5s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 48.6s | read the git history | commits: 3984tracked files: 2883 |
| 188.3s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 188.4s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 245.4s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 245.4s | deleting the working copy |
Total 245.4s ·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).