9f89d36 · 45,966 commits · 4,870 files
Issued 2026-10-22
SUL-1.0 since 2026-01-09: source available, not open source; use limited to internal business purposes.
102 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 17 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 22 October 2026.
- 05.60 SUL-1.0 since 2026-01-09: source available, not open source; use limited to internal business purposes
- 05.66 The licence is SUL-1.0: source available, not open source LICENSE.md:1
- 05.60 Relicensed: MIT → AGPL-3.0 (2021-05-27) → SUL-1.0 (2026-01-09) LICENSE
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here may be significant, and 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.
- 04.3 170 direct dependencies in a single manifest
- 4 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 1 credential-shaped match is 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 | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 19% 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
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑packages/nocodb-sdk/src/lib/Api.ts is 19,953 lines, 249× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 80 lines. 120 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 19,953. 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. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 94% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| line-count | packages/nocodb-sdk/src/lib/Api.ts:1 — 19,953 lines (249× median) |
| line-count | packages/nocodb/src/public/js/vue.global.js:1 — 16,160 lines (202× median) |
| line-count | packages/nocodb/src/db/BaseModelSqlv2.ts:1 — 10,885 lines (136× median) |
| line-count | packages/nocodb/src/services/columns.service.ts:1 — 9,955 lines (124× median) |
| line-count | packages/nc-gui/utils/iconUtils.ts:1 — 4,836 lines (60× 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
adequate119 test files against 3,360 source files (3.5%). 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 | 119 test files / 3,360 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 · adequate · ratings ↑Regular contributors fell from 22 to 14 in a year
adequate12 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 6 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.
| regular contributors by year | 22 then 14; 12 stopped committing, 6 began |
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 ↑170 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequate worth checking firstpackages/nocodb/package.json declares 170 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/nocodb/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/nocodb/package.json — 170 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/nc-gui/package.json — 149 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/nocodb-sdk/package.json — 15 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/nc-secret-mgr/package.json — 9 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.
5% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 8462 fixes in the last 24 months, 408 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 | 408 of 8462 |
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.
API v1, v2 and v3 have been served together for 30 months
adequatev3 first appeared in Apr 2024, and v1, v2 is still in the code 30 months later. Two versions mean two surfaces to secure, document and support. Ask who still calls the old one, and whether retiring it is planned.
| packages/nocodb-sdk/src/lib/Api.ts | packages/nocodb-sdk/src/lib/Api.ts — v1 since Mar 2023 |
| packages/nocodb/src/controllers/data-table.controller.ts | packages/nocodb/src/controllers/data-table.controller.ts — v2 since Oct 2023 |
| packages/nocodb/src/controllers/view-columns.controller.ts | packages/nocodb/src/controllers/view-columns.controller.ts — v3 since Apr 2024 |
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 ↑Relicensed: MIT → AGPL-3.0 (2021-05-27) → SUL-1.0 (2026-01-09)
adequateThe root licence changed 2 time(s). The latest terms restrict what users, hosts or a buyer may do in ways the earlier ones did not. Code taken under the old terms stays under them, so both matter in diligence.
| 98424f511 | LICENSE — MIT from 2017-10-29 |
| 69be190d6 | LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 from 2021-05-27 |
| f07a8da6e | LICENSE — SUL-1.0 from 2026-01-09 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 credential-shaped string exists in the history
adequateMatches for AWS access key were committed at some point across 20,000 commits examined (the scan stopped at its limit, so older history was not read). Some of the files that held them are still in the working tree. What matters is whether each was rotated after it was committed. The code cannot tell whether any of them is live, and that decides whether this matters: none sits in production configuration, and none is in a format its provider keeps for live keys. Is any of these live? Show that each was rotated after it was committed, and when.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| history | AWS access key pattern added here |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
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; 2 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/build-check.yml | .github/workflows/build-check.yml:46 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/ci-cd.yml | .github/workflows/ci-cd.yml:40 — action pinned by tag |
| docker-compose/1_Auto_Upstall/noco.sh | docker-compose/1_Auto_Upstall/noco.sh:667 — 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.
12 SQL statements built from strings
adequate12 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 4 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| packages/nocodb/src/db/relation-manager.ts | packages/nocodb/src/db/relation-manager.ts:674 — SQL built from a string |
| packages/nocodb/src/db/relation-manager.ts | packages/nocodb/src/db/relation-manager.ts:856 — SQL built from a string |
| packages/nocodb/src/services/columns.service.ts | packages/nocodb/src/services/columns.service.ts:3713 — 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.
2 of 2 Kubernetes workloads declare no resource limits
adequate2 workload manifests set no CPU or memory limits. One pod that leaks memory or spins can starve everything else on its node, and the scheduler cannot plan capacity for what it cannot see.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| charts/nocodb/templates/deployment-app.yaml | charts/nocodb/templates/deployment-app.yaml — workload with no limits |
| charts/nocodb/templates/deployment-worker.yaml | charts/nocodb/templates/deployment-worker.yaml — workload with no limits |
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.
16 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate16 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/nc-gui/components/extensions/Details.vue | packages/nc-gui/components/extensions/Details.vue:128 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/nc-gui/components/feed/Changelog/Item.vue | packages/nc-gui/components/feed/Changelog/Item.vue:141 — HTML from a variable |
| packages/nc-gui/components/feed/Recents/Card.vue | packages/nc-gui/components/feed/Recents/Card.vue:89 — 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.
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 — 63 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.
124 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 39 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-11-03. 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 107 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 0.301.5. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| CVE-2026-121736 | 2026-11-03: CVE-2026-121736 (moderate): NocoDB 0.300.0 before 2026.08.0 contains a missing authentication vulnerability in the POST /api/v2/oauth/authorize handler that allows unauthenticated attacker |
| GHSA-qgv3-m9j5-jph8 | 2026-11-02: GHSA-qgv3-m9j5-jph8 (moderate), fixed in 2026.10.1: Stored CSS Injection via Unescaped Mention Attribute |
| GHSA-9fp2-px3g-mggq | 2026-11-02: GHSA-9fp2-px3g-mggq (moderate), fixed in 2026.10.1: Stored HTML Injection via Rich Text Cells |
| GHSA-f33g-c5jc-jvr3 | 2026-11-02: GHSA-f33g-c5jc-jvr3 (high), fixed in 2026.10.0: SQL Injection via Formula Parsed Tree Operator |
| GHSA-4rrc-r66w-5v7f | 2026-11-02: GHSA-4rrc-r66w-5v7f (high), fixed in 2026.10.1: Incorrect Authorization via Unenforced Route Role Restrictions |
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 ↑No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| logging-scan | searched 3,665 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
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.
Sends usage data to telemetry.nocodb.com by default
adequatepackages/nc-secret-mgr/src/nocodb/cli.js sends to telemetry.nocodb.com, and charts/nocodb/values.yaml 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/nc-secret-mgr/src/nocodb/cli.js | packages/nc-secret-mgr/src/nocodb/cli.js:2 — reports to telemetry.nocodb.com |
| charts/nocodb/values.yaml | charts/nocodb/values.yaml:124 — 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.
Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 1 of 1 workloads
adequateBoth probes call the same endpoint. When a dependency slows down, the liveness probe fails with the readiness probe, so the platform restarts pods that only needed taking out of rotation, and a partial outage becomes a full one. Liveness should ask whether the process is alive; readiness whether it can serve.
| charts/nocodb/templates/deployment-app.yaml | charts/nocodb/templates/deployment-app.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
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
6 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 4,586 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 370 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 5,741 commits landed in the last year, against 12,644 the year before (-55%). 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 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial 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 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-compose/, markdown/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (charts/nocodb/templates/deployment-app.yaml 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/nocodb/nocodb/9f89d36)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 — 69
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 23,779 · top5 share 0.033 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 187 · per kloc 0.19 · lines read 979,981 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.953 · early test per code 4.772 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.664 · early delete per insert 0.422 |
| 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 3,246 · compat files 2 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 29 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 8 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 2 · config files 0 |
| 06.single_replica | an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 2 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 2 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 54 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 12 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 9.0 · window last 24 months · authors 370 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 370 · active 12mo 34 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 370 · directories 3 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 370 · one off share 0.611 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 370 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 69 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 2,823 · window last 24 months · with tracked 9 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 11 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 374 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 39,425 · low content share 0.014 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 11 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 136 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 11 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 24 · recent commits 18,387 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 3 · commits since 104 · days since lockfile changed 7 |
| 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 7 · ci configs 11 · product files 3,246 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.028 · merges 2,671 · long lived 75 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.009 · commits 17,051 · over 2000 lines 160 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was translation files (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 8902238..480a8b2 · bursts explained 31 · largest net added 83,775 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 6,899 · share of insertions 0.0008 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 19.16 · repeat share 0.291 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 4,354 · write once share 0.39 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0257 · product files 3,240 · distinct blocks 446,014 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 983,582 · files 54 · per kloc 0.14 |
| 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 paths; the only other matches are expired or licence tokens or placeholders, which grant nothingnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 3,665 |
| 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 7 · irreversible 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.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.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_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the historylive 2 · retired 1 · flags seen 3 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 11 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 358 · added in two years 262 · removed within 60 days 4 |
| 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 13.5 · days since last tag -6 · commits last 90 days 2,050 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 3 · on branch 245 · tags in window 248 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 16
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.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.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 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 to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript, 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 |
| 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 | manifest licence 'Sustainable Use License' is not a recognised SPDX identifier |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm nc-lib-gui (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm nocodb-sdk (an empty record for a package published here) 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 R40Y-6TNS-6E90 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/R40Y6TNS6E90?via=badge)
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 1471.1authenticated: False |
| 133.1s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 214.6s | read the git history | commits: 45966tracked files: 4870 |
| 513.4s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 513.5s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 690.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 690.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 690.0s ·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).