e470f89 · 50,000 commits · 957 files
Issued 2026-10-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity, Product & Engineering Maturity.
106 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 2 raised something worth a question. 6 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | not assessable | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 55% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑player/command.c is 8,633 lines, 52× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 165 lines. 18 files exceed 1,650 lines, the largest being 8,633. 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 | player/command.c:1 — 8,633 lines (52× median) |
| line-count | video/out/wayland_common.c:1 — 5,114 lines (30× median) |
| line-count | demux/demux.c:1 — 4,994 lines (30× median) |
| line-count | video/out/gpu/video.c:1 — 4,532 lines (27× median) |
| line-count | options/m_option.c:1 — 4,108 lines (24× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · adequate · ratings ↑Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase
adequate29 test files against 659 source files (4.4%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.
| test-file-ratio | 29 test files / 659 source files |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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 ↑2% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 270 fixes in the last 24 months, 5 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 | 5 of 270 |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 14 of 34 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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate7 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/build.yml | .github/workflows/build.yml:561 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/build.yml | .github/workflows/build.yml:732 — 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.
Relicensed: GPL-2.0 → GPL-3.0 (2011-03-24) → GPL-2.0 (2013-10-12)
adequateThe root licence changed 2 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".
| c79f14efc | LICENSE — GPL-2.0 from 2003-08-06 |
| 17528080d | LICENSE — GPL-3.0 from 2011-03-24 |
| a55073120 | LICENSE — GPL-2.0 from 2013-10-12 |
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 advisory against this project in the last 24 months
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-05-12. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 1 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 0.41.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 4 records name mpv with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2025-40238, CVE-2026-47114, CVE-2026-52876, …).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| GHSA-546v-22c3-7927 | 2026-05-12: GHSA-546v-22c3-7927 (moderate): Terminal sequence injection |
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 4 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
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
1 check 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 680 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 coverage- measured 761 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- 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 coverageNot rated: only 14 of 34 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read 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 4 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a C codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run C in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in video/, stream/, audio/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/mpv-player/mpv/e470f89)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 — 100 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 100 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 — 48
| 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 (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026)files 6,249 · top5 share 0.072 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 33 · per kloc 0.12 · lines read 271,326 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026) · late test per code 0.018 · early test per code 0.0 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026) · late delete per insert 0.73 · early delete per insert 1.058 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 815 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 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 761 · top share a quarter or more |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 138 |
| 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 7 · joined 12 · regular last year 26 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 207 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 6 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026)sampled 49,701 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026) · low content share 0.032 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 6 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 52 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 6 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.016 · reverts 42 · recent commits 2,600 |
| 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 6 · product files 630 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.0 · commits 2,372 · over 2000 lines 1 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was history replayed by an export or mirror tool, dated when it was replayed rather than when it was written (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays it, in the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026) · largest commits 9e0c73f..61a122e · bursts explained 1 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026) · length stdev 49.61 · repeat share 0.055 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0018 · product files 630 · distinct blocks 163,426 |
| 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 815 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 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.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as LGPL-3.0class weak-copyleft · license LGPL-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 1 · added in two years 0 · 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.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 161.0 · days since last tag 115 · commits last 90 days 261 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyed, in the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026)elsewhere 70 · on branch 18 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026) |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 52
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest 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.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026) were read |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | no lockfile to date |
| 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 (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (8 Apr 2002 to 27 Sep 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.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.dependency_pinning | no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was added outside test and fixture paths in the 20,000 most recent commits scanned; older history was not read |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | 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.known_vulnerabilities | no lockfile this survey can read, or a collector older than 0.4.0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 4 records name mpv with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2025-40238, CVE-2026-47114, CVE-2026-52876, …) |
| 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 7FYP-AB8V-HR1T 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/7FYPAB8VHR1T?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-03 · shown | borehole 0.7.11 | 6 | adequate |
8 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 5 | 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 |
| 25.8s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 62.4s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 957 |
| 108.5s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 108.5s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 137.3s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 137.3s | deleting the working copy |
Total 137.3s ·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).