6e6ec21 · 968 commits · 2,093 files
Issued 2026-09-30
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance.
102 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 11 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
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 46 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 80 high or critical
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 1 finding rated significant by a check that has not yet held up in Borehole's calibration is now worth checking first.
- 2 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.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 29% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- deep scan blamed 2,083 of 2,083 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑The repository begins with most of itself already written
adequateThe first commit carries 276,373 lines — 42% of every line ever added. Whatever happened before that commit happened somewhere this repository cannot show you, so the early history is not available as evidence of how the system was designed.
| bf1f244 | 2021-12-04T23:26:14+00:00; +276,373 across 415 files; subject: 'chore: first commit' |
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.
app/Domains/Settings/CreateAccount/Jobs/SetupAccount.php is 1,218 lines, 17× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 68 lines. 1 file exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 1,218. 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 | app/Domains/Settings/CreateAccount/Jobs/SetupAccount.php:1 — 1,218 lines (17× 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 · 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. The findings below are what it could still read.
70% of contributors committed exactly once and never returned
adequate26 of 37 contributors made a single commit. That is the signature of a codebase that is hard to join: people arrive, land one change and do not come back. It matters after an acquisition because putting new engineers on this system is the first thing anyone will try to do.
| one-commit-authors | 26 of 37 authors (70.3%) have exactly one commit |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑8% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 39 fixes in the last 24 months, 3 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 | 3 of 39 |
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, v4.1.2, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest pre-release on it is v5.0.0-beta.5. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
| 32028ce3c | tag v4.1.2 |
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 environment file is committed
adequate.env.example.sail is tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
| .env.example.sail | .env.example.sail — committed environment 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 build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate16 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day. 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.
| .github/workflows/deploy.yml | .github/workflows/deploy.yml:17 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/docker.yml | .github/workflows/docker.yml:52 — action pinned by tag |
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.
46 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 80 high or critical
adequate worth checking first46 of 705 locked dependencies match 167 published advisories in OSV, 80 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening yarn.lock and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| yarn.lock | yarn.lock — tar 7.4.3: GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw (critical), fixed in 7.5.19 |
| composer.lock | composer.lock — laravel/framework 12.22.1: GHSA-5vg9-5847-vvmq (high), fixed in 12.60.0 |
| composer.lock | composer.lock — league/commonmark 2.7.1: GHSA-2q4p-g7hv-5rgv (high), fixed in 2.9.0 |
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.
18 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate18 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.
| resources/js/Components/Pagination.vue | resources/js/Components/Pagination.vue:30 — HTML from a variable |
| resources/js/Components/Pagination.vue | resources/js/Components/Pagination.vue:37 — HTML from a variable |
| resources/js/Components/Pagination.vue | resources/js/Components/Pagination.vue:53 — 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.
2 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-02-20. 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. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
| CVE-2026-26747 | 2026-02-20: CVE-2026-26747 (critical): A Host Header Poisoning vulnerability exists in Monica 4.1.2 due to improper handling of the HTTP Host header in app/Providers/AppServiceProvider.php, combined |
| CVE-2024-54951 | 2025-02-13: CVE-2024-54951 (moderate): Monica 4.1.2 is vulnerable to Cross Site Scripting (XSS). A malicious user can create a malformed contact and use that contact in the "HOW YOU MET" customizatio |
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 ↑One request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.
| request ids | no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
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 No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 1,540 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- 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- measured 2 commits landed in the last year, against 79 the year before (-97%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three.
- 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 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 PHP codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run PHP in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in public/, lang/, app/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker-compose.yml). 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/monicahq/monica/6e6ec21)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 — 63
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 4,218 · top5 share 0.026 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 5 · per kloc 0.02 · lines read 218,729 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.18 · early test per code 0.292 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.38 · early delete per insert 0.258 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 1,404 · compat files 0 |
| 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 17 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 2 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 1 · config files 0 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 2 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.knowledge_silos | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 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 8 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 516 · source 1,912 · test ratio 0.27 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 95 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 968 · 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 520 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 8 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 9 · days since lockfile changed 410 |
| 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 2 · ci configs 8 · product files 1,404 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 13.98 · repeat share 0.081 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,483 · write once share 0.212 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 220,725 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 1,998 |
| 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.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 583,973 |
| 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.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 7 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on AGPL-3.0license AGPL-3.0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 110 · added in two years 16 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 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 41.5 · days since last tag 526 · commits last 90 days 2 |
| 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 — 28
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.release_markers | fewer than 100 commits in the last year |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.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 |
| 02.revert_share | too few recent commits to judge how often change is undone |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 02.commit_size | too few recent commits |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile outside development, test and example paths |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for PHP, 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 assessed for PHP, 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 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two years |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 9 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version could not be placed |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 68J5-JBYG-4Y6S 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/68J5JBYG4Y6S?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-30 · shown | borehole 0.7.8 | 15 | adequate |
15 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 15 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.4 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 16 | 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 |
| 21.1s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 24.5s | read the git history | commits: 968tracked files: 2093 |
| 135.2s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 135.2s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 167.6s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 167.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 167.6s ·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).