2c991c8 · 50,000 commits · 55,721 files
Issued 2026-10-22
Reads strong: 3 of 5 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Product & Engineering Maturity are adequate. 1 finding is worth checking first. 12 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
This repository reads strong. Show it in your README: the badge links to a page where anyone can check the reading. 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/9XD00RRFXB6M?via=badge)- 05.66 The licence is SSPL-1.0 with additional terms: source available, not open source LICENSE-Community.txt:1
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 05.26 23 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 2 high or critical in what ships
- 3 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 | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 54% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑jstests/auth/lib/commands_lib.js is 11,156 lines, 107× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 104 lines. 196 files exceed 1,040 lines, the largest being 11,156. 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 | jstests/auth/lib/commands_lib.js:1 — 11,156 lines (107× median) |
| line-count | src/mongo/bson/column/bsoncolumn_test.cpp:1 — 10,505 lines (101× median) |
| line-count | src/mongo/bson/column/bson_column_compressed_data.inl:1 — 9,424 lines (90× median) |
| line-count | jstests/libs/write_concern_all_commands.js:1 — 7,041 lines (67× median) |
| line-count | src/mongo/db/fts/unicode/codepoints_diacritic_map.cpp:1 — 5,491 lines (52× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · 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 ↑8% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 1362 fixes in the last 24 months, 106 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 | 106 of 1362 |
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 ↑None of the standard security guard rails are configured
adequateThere is no disclosure policy, no automated dependency updates, no named code owners and no pre-commit configuration. None of these is load-bearing on its own. Their collective absence says that security posture here is whatever the current team happens to remember to do, which is not a posture that survives the team changing.
| guardrail-scan | checked 5 kinds of guard rail across 55,721 tracked files; 0 present |
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.
2 Dockerfiles run the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
| no-USER-instruction | buildscripts/antithesis/base_images/mongo_binaries/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | buildscripts/antithesis/base_images/workload/Dockerfile — runs as root |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
23 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 2 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first23 of 294 locked dependencies match 76 published advisories in OSV, 49 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening uv.lock settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| uv.lock | uv.lock — certifi 2026.6.17: GHSA-6q48-6c7w-9gw2 (critical), fixed in 2026.10.19; a development dependency |
| uv.lock | uv.lock — gitpython 3.1.50: GHSA-284h-m62q-gf8w (critical), fixed in 3.1.59; a development dependency |
| uv.lock | uv.lock — uv 0.11.13: GHSA-hq85-5cpj-mr62 (critical), fixed in 0.13.4; a development dependency |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate8 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.
| buildscripts/build_cargo_bazel_ppc64le.sh | buildscripts/build_cargo_bazel_ppc64le.sh:33 — 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.
15 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate15 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| buildscripts/client/github.py | buildscripts/client/github.py:25 — outbound call without a timeout |
| buildscripts/collect_resource_info.py | buildscripts/collect_resource_info.py:49 — outbound call without a timeout |
| buildscripts/download_sys_perf_binaries.py | buildscripts/download_sys_perf_binaries.py:20 — outbound call without a timeout |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
21 shell commands built from strings
adequate21 places run a command through a shell (`shell=True`, `os.system`, `exec` with a template) rather than passing arguments. Where any part comes from outside, it is command injection. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| bazel/hermetic_container/hermetic_container.py | bazel/hermetic_container/hermetic_container.py:382 — command run through a shell |
| bazel/hermetic_container/hermetic_container.py | bazel/hermetic_container/hermetic_container.py:386 — command run through a shell |
| bazel/hermetic_container/hermetic_container.py | bazel/hermetic_container/hermetic_container.py:403 — command run through 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.
15 deserialisers that can run code
adequate15 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (`yaml.load` without a safe loader). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| bazel/resmoke/derive_suite_selectors.py | bazel/resmoke/derive_suite_selectors.py:59 — code-executing deserialiser |
| bazel/resmoke/derive_suite_selectors.py | bazel/resmoke/derive_suite_selectors.py:258 — code-executing deserialiser |
| buildscripts/config_diff.py | buildscripts/config_diff.py:264 — code-executing deserialiser |
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.
15 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.
| bazel/third_party/BUILD.bazel | bazel/third_party/BUILD.bazel — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| bazel/third_party/grpc_cross_rbe.patch | bazel/third_party/grpc_cross_rbe.patch — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| bazel/third_party/protobuf_cross_rbe.patch | bazel/third_party/protobuf_cross_rbe.patch — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| jstests/third_party/BUILD.bazel | jstests/third_party/BUILD.bazel — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| src/third_party/IntelRDFPMathLib20U1 | src/third_party/IntelRDFPMathLib20U1 — 345 tracked files, no licence file |
| src/third_party/boringssl_replacement | src/third_party/boringssl_replacement — 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.
The licence is SSPL-1.0 with additional terms: source available, not open source
adequateLICENSE-Community.txt grants SSPL-1.0 with additional terms: source available, not open source; offering it as a service obliges publishing the whole service stack. The reading comes from the licence's own title and clauses. Whether the terms fit the buyer's intended use, and whether any paid licence transfers with the code, is a question for counsel and the licensor.
A note that does not affect this rating: it names the project's licence, a fact for the first screen rather than a weakness.
| LICENSE-Community.txt | LICENSE-Community.txt:1 — 557 lines, SSPL-1.0 AND LicenseRef-Terms-Additional |
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 (bazel/docs/architecture/ppc64le_build_from_source.md and 3 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 675 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 No experiment tracking is configured in the repository. How was the shipped model trained and evaluated, and could it be reproduced?
- measured No model card is in the tree. What is the model's intended use, what was it trained on, and where does it fail?
- 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 05.5 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?
- measured Infrastructure code (buildscripts/resmokeconfig/suites/serverless.yml) last changed 13 months before the newest commit, while 11,497 commits landed. Is the infrastructure now changed by hand? Compare the live account with the code.
- 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 Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (buildscripts/resmokeconfig/suites/backup_restore.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 JavaScript codebase, with C++ alongside (32% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run JavaScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in src/, jstests/, buildscripts/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (bazel/hermetic_container/Dockerfile.hermetic_container and 4 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/mongodb/mongo/2c991c8)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 — 91 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 91 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 — 56
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few files, in the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026)files 114,107 · top5 share 0.012 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 2,882 · per kloc 1.38 · lines read 2,092,216 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) · late test per code 0.11 · early test per code 0.014 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) · late delete per insert 0.671 · early delete per insert 0.535 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.002 · code files 34,798 · compat files 54 |
| 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 104 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 4 · settings off 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 81 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 26 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthswindow last 24 months · authors 675 · top share less than a quarter |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 406 |
| 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 48 · joined 85 · regular last year 283 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 9 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,857 · source 19,072 · test ratio 0.15 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026)sampled 50,000 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) · low content share 0.0 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 5,072 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 9 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.012 · reverts 231 · recent commits 18,506 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 271 · days since lockfile changed 9 |
| 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 3 · ci configs 9 · product files 34,798 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.019 · commits 16,859 · over 2000 lines 319 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was documentation and notebooks (55% 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 it, in the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) · largest commits 8db5546..e91d900 · bursts explained 1 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) · length stdev 21.72 · repeat share 0.025 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0151 · product files 11,202 · distinct blocks 1,267,221 |
| 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.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 11,333 |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 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.dataset_provenance | data files carry a licence or carddata files 1 · licence or card files 2 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | the project is itself SSPL-1.0, so copyleft components carry no obligation it has not already acceptedown license SSPL-1.0 · copyleft components 2 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | flags are retired about as fast as they are addedlive 11 · retired 4 · flags seen 15 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 6 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 264 · added in two years 70 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 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 0 · 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 8 · commits last 90 days 2,106 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyed, in the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026)elsewhere 0 · on branch 0 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 35
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 |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for C++, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for C++: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.correlation_ids | not assessed for C++, 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 C++, 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 | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Sep 2020 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for C++, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.notebook_outputs | too few notebooks |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not assessed for C++, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for C++, 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 a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD did not |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; NVD did not answer |
| 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 9XD0-0RRF-XB6M 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/9XD00RRFXB6M?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: 1402.5authenticated: False |
| 232.1s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 420.2s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 55721 |
| 1097.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 1097.7s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 1552.4s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 1552.4s | deleting the working copy |
Total 1552.4s ·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).