c1463d0 · 24,863 commits · 29,640 files
Issued 2026-10-03
1 advisory against this project is on CISA's known-exploited list; whether it affects the surveyed commit could not be told.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 4 findings are worth checking first. 18 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 05.66 The licence is SUL-1.0: source available, not open source LICENSE.md:1
- 05.60 Relicensed: Apache-2.0 with the Commons Clause and an attribution term → SUL-1.0 (2022-03-17) LICENSE
- 05.61 138 files are named as enterprise-edition code packages/@n8n/blob-storage/src/azure-blob/azure-blob.service.ee.ts
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions CONTRIBUTING.md:594
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.
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 5 credential-shaped matches are withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 24% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑packages/frontend/@n8n/design-system/src/components/N8nIconPicker/emojiData.ts is 9,905 lines, 125× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 79 lines. 193 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 9,905. 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 | packages/frontend/@n8n/design-system/src/components/N8nIconPicker/emojiData.ts:1 — 9,905 lines (125× median) |
| line-count | packages/nodes-base/nodes/UProc/Json/Tools.ts:1 — 7,968 lines (100× median) |
| line-count | packages/cli/src/modules/instance-ai/instance-ai.service.ts:1 — 7,216 lines (91× median) |
| line-count | packages/cli/src/modules/instance-ai/instance-ai.adapter.service.ts:1 — 5,422 lines (68× median) |
| line-count | packages/nodes-base/nodes/Pipedrive/v1/PipedriveV1.node.ts:1 — 4,998 lines (63× 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 ↑5% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate564 of 11279 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| git log --numstat | 564 commits over 2,000 lines |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑157 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequate worth checking firstpackages/cli/package.json declares 157 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.
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 packages/cli/package.json and the 3 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| direct-dependencies | packages/cli/package.json — 157 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/@n8n/nodes-langchain/package.json — 90 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/nodes-base/package.json — 88 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/frontend/@n8n/design-system/package.json — 36 declared |
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, n8n@2.41.6, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is n8n@2.41.0. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| f5da43d99 | tag n8n@2.41.6 |
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 ↑8 credential-shaped strings in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings
adequateStrings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key.
| GitHub token | GitHub token, where fakes are usual |
| Slack token | 4 cited: Slack token, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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 | docker/images/n8n-base/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/images/node-pc/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.
32 SQL statements built from strings
adequate worth checking first32 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters, and in 5 of them a value, not a table or column name, goes into the string. Where any of those values comes from a request, it is an injection point. Each site needs a look; the fix, parameters, is small.
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 packages/@n8n/backend-test-utils/src/test-db.ts:90 and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| packages/@n8n/backend-test-utils/src/test-db.ts | packages/@n8n/backend-test-utils/src/test-db.ts:90 — SQL built from a string |
| packages/@n8n/backend-test-utils/src/test-db.ts | packages/@n8n/backend-test-utils/src/test-db.ts:107 — SQL built from a string |
| packages/@n8n/db/src/repositories/scheduled-task.repository.ts | packages/@n8n/db/src/repositories/scheduled-task.repository.ts:533 — SQL built from a string |
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.
49 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 29 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first49 of 3,880 locked dependencies match 129 published advisories in OSV, 44 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 packages/@n8n/task-runner-python/uv.lock and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| packages/@n8n/task-runner-python/uv.lock | packages/@n8n/task-runner-python/uv.lock — urllib3 2.7.0: GHSA-8988-9cw3-xx77 (high), fixed in 2.8.0 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — @grpc/grpc-js 1.14.4: GHSA-m9gg-hp2v-232j (high), fixed in 1.14.5 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — @tiptap/core 3.27.0: GHSA-j95f-988m-3j2f (high), fixed in 3.30.5 |
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 workload setting give a container the host
adequate worth checking first1 places in the deployment configuration run a container privileged or in the host's network, process or IPC namespace. A compromise of that container is a compromise of the machine, and most acquirers' security reviews block it. Node agents (network, storage, monitoring) are excluded.
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 docker/get-n8n-compose.yml:57 settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| docker/get-n8n-compose.yml | docker/get-n8n-compose.yml:57 — privileged or host namespace |
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.
138 files are named as enterprise-edition code
adequateFiles named `.ee.` are, by the common open-core convention, the paid edition's code, usually under a licence that is not open source even where the rest is. What the buyer may do with each part differs.
| packages/@n8n/blob-storage/src/azure-blob/azure-blob.service.ee.ts | packages/@n8n/blob-storage/src/azure-blob/azure-blob.service.ee.ts — enterprise-edition file |
| packages/@n8n/blob-storage/src/azure-byte-store.ee.ts | packages/@n8n/blob-storage/src/azure-byte-store.ee.ts — enterprise-edition file |
| packages/@n8n/blob-storage/src/object-store/object-store.service.ee.ts | packages/@n8n/blob-storage/src/object-store/object-store.service.ee.ts — enterprise-edition 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
adequate1 third-party CI action is referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day; 7 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.
| .github/workflows/docker-build-push.yml | .github/workflows/docker-build-push.yml:543 — action pinned by tag |
| .githooks/check-pnpm.sh | .githooks/check-pnpm.sh:11 — 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.
2 shell commands built from strings
adequate2 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.
| packages/@n8n/node-cli/src/commands/dev/utils.ts | packages/@n8n/node-cli/src/commands/dev/utils.ts:353 — command run through a shell |
| packages/@n8n/node-cli/src/commands/dev/utils.ts | packages/@n8n/node-cli/src/commands/dev/utils.ts:464 — 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.
4 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate4 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| packages/frontend/@n8n/design-system/src/components/N8nCodeBlock/CodeBlock.vue | packages/frontend/@n8n/design-system/src/components/N8nCodeBlock/CodeBlock.vue:129 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/frontend/@n8n/design-system/src/components/N8nMarkdown/Markdown.vue | packages/frontend/@n8n/design-system/src/components/N8nMarkdown/Markdown.vue:289 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/frontend/editor-ui/src/features/ai/instanceAi/components/InstanceAiMarkdown.vue | packages/frontend/editor-ui/src/features/ai/instanceAi/components/InstanceAiMarkdown.vue:260 — 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.
3 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.
| packages/nodes-base/nodes/QuickBooks/__schema__/v1.0.0/vendor/getAll.json | packages/nodes-base/nodes/QuickBooks/__schema__/v1.0.0/vendor/getAll.json — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| packages/nodes-base/nodes/QuickBooks/descriptions/Vendor/VendorAdditionalFieldsOptions.ts | packages/nodes-base/nodes/QuickBooks/descriptions/Vendor/VendorAdditionalFieldsOptions.ts — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| packages/nodes-base/nodes/QuickBooks/descriptions/Vendor/VendorDescription.ts | packages/nodes-base/nodes/QuickBooks/descriptions/Vendor/VendorDescription.ts — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The licence is SUL-1.0: source available, not open source
adequateLICENSE.md grants SUL-1.0: source available, not open source; use limited to internal business purposes. 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.md | LICENSE.md:1 — 88 lines, SUL-1.0 |
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.
Relicensed: Apache-2.0 with the Commons Clause and an attribution term → SUL-1.0 (2022-03-17)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 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".
| 9cb9804ee | LICENSE — Apache-2.0 with the Commons Clause and an attribution term from 2019-06-23 |
| 521cf51e7 | LICENSE.md — SUL-1.0 from 2022-03-17 |
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.
211 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 118 high or critical, 1 on CISA's known-exploited list
adequate1 of them is on CISA's known-exploited list: check first whether the release you run has the fix. The newest was published on 2026-09-30. 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 182 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 2.41.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| GHSA-v98v-ff95-f3cp | 2025-12-22: GHSA-v98v-ff95-f3cp (critical; on CISA's Known Exploited list), fixed in 1.120.4: n8n Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via Expression Injection |
| GHSA-5qpp-pqww-h7fp | 2026-09-30: GHSA-5qpp-pqww-h7fp (high), fixed in >= 2.41.4: SQL Injection in the Microsoft SQL Node via Expression Interpolation into the Query Field |
| GHSA-p3pg-xw4f-m72c | 2026-09-30: GHSA-p3pg-xw4f-m72c (moderate), fixed in >= 2.41.4: Cross-User Agent Chat Resume Allows Hijacking Another User's Pending Tool Approval |
| GHSA-5jr4-xmvf-frmj | 2026-09-30: GHSA-5jr4-xmvf-frmj (high), fixed in >= 2.41.4: Shared Prototype Mutation Through the MCP Workflow-Validation Interpreter Allows Owner Account Takeover |
| GHSA-3qcw-p65v-c7vq | 2026-09-30: GHSA-3qcw-p65v-c7vq (high), fixed in >= 2.41.4: Unauthenticated Unbounded OAuth Client Persistence via the Authorize Endpoint |
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 ↑Sends usage data to telemetry.n8n.io by default
adequatepackages/@n8n/config/src/configs/diagnostics.config.ts sends to telemetry.n8n.io, and packages/@n8n/db/src/migrations/common/1784000000019-AddCustomTelemetryTagsToProject.ts leaves reporting on as shipped. Every installation reports to the vendor unless its operator turns this off. For a buyer running it inside their own product, that is an outbound data flow to a third party: ask what is sent, how often, and whether the buyer's customers were told.
| packages/@n8n/config/src/configs/diagnostics.config.ts | packages/@n8n/config/src/configs/diagnostics.config.ts:22 — reports to telemetry.n8n.io |
| packages/@n8n/db/src/migrations/common/1784000000019-AddCustomTelemetryTagsToProject.ts | packages/@n8n/db/src/migrations/common/1784000000019-AddCustomTelemetryTagsToProject.ts:13 — the reporting setting is on by default |
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
7 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 (packages/@n8n/engine/docs/adr/ADR-20260828-obtain-trigger-output-before-creating-the-execution.md and 5 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 777 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 8,620 commits landed in the last year, against 3,613 the year before (+139%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured 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?
- measured Service-level objectives are defined in the tree (packages/@n8n/eslint-plugin-community-nodes/tsconfig.eslint.json). Are they met? The repository holds the target, not the measurement.
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- 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 TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in packages/, docker/, patches/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 41% of lines added in the last 12 months (25% of added lines) came through AI-declared commits. Does your organisation have a policy on inheriting and maintaining that code, and does your engineering team's tooling match how it was produced?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker/images/engine/Dockerfile and 5 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/n8n-io/n8n/c1463d0)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 — 85 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 85 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 — 65
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 49,887 · top5 share 0.02 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 420 · per kloc 0.16 · lines read 2,586,449 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.148 · early test per code 0.047 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.368 · early delete per insert 0.362 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 5,320 · share 0.714 · with tests 3,799 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 12,852 · compat files 19 |
| 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 243 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 3 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 163 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 2 · config files 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 6 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 430 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 20 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 7.3 · window last 24 months · authors 777 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 777 · active 12mo 352 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 777 · directories 3 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 777 · one off share 0.616 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 777 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than two years ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 442 |
| 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 15 · joined 79 · regular last year 119 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 88 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 112 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 9,912 · source 22,764 · test ratio 0.435 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 2,184 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 24,024 · low content share 0.003 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 112 · with tests 17 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 3 · test files 12,060 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 112 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 9 · recent commits 12,245 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 43 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 103 · ci configs 112 · product files 12,852 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.0 · merges 83 · long lived 0 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was merged pull requests, each developed and reviewed on its own branch (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays itlargest commits 4db0046..d7f70b6 · bursts explained 2 · largest net added 2,381 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 42,436 · share of insertions 0.0043 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.61 · repeat share 0.018 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 15,361 · write once share 0.331 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 2,603,095 · files 95 · per kloc 0.06 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 14 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 13 · irreversible 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 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 3 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 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 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.0 · days since last tag -6 · commits last 90 days 3,581 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 20
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 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.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | the history scanned covers 5 months, less than the 12 this question needs |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | the history scanned covers 5 months, less than the 18 this question needs |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | the history scanned covers 5 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.dependency_churn | the history scanned covers 5 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | the history scanned covers 5 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm n8n-core (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm n8n-workflow (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/agents (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/ai-node-sdk (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/ai-utilities (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/ai-workflow-builder (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/api-types (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/backend-common (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/backend-network (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/backend-services (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/backend-test-utils (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/blob-storage (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/chat-hub (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/cli (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/client-oauth2 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/codemirror-lang-html (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/codemirror-lang-sql (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/codemirror-lang (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/computer-use (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/config (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/constants (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/crdt (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @n8n/create-node (an empty record for a package published here), NVD did not |
| 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 NDY7-WNRJ-QHX3 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/NDY7WNRJQHX3?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 | 21 | adequate |
12 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 21 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 21 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 21 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 20 | significant findings |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 19 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 20 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 19 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 19 | significant findings |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 18 | significant findings |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 18 | significant findings |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 18 | significant findings |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 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 |
| 64.2s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 116.0s | read the git history | commits: 24863tracked files: 29640 |
| 630.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 630.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 993.7s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 993.7s | deleting the working copy |
Total 993.7s ·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).