290080e · 50,000 commits · 20,861 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 2 findings are worth checking first. 18 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
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.
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 2 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 | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 11% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- 23% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑1 model weight file committed directly to git
adequate1 model weight files are stored in git itself, not in LFS, DVC or a model hub. Every clone carries them, the history keeps every version for good, and nothing records which run or data produced them.
| contributors/emails/ada.a0uew@56.pt | contributors/emails/ada.a0uew@56.pt — weights in git |
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.
apps/desktop/electron/main.ts is 18,333 lines, 235× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 78 lines. 284 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 18,333. 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 93% 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 | apps/desktop/electron/main.ts:1 — 18,333 lines (235× median) |
| line-count | agent/auxiliary_client.py:1 — 8,393 lines (107× median) |
| line-count | plugins/platforms/discord/adapter.py:1 — 7,415 lines (95× median) |
| line-count | plugins/platforms/telegram/adapter.py:1 — 7,382 lines (94× median) |
| line-count | plugins/platforms/slack/adapter.py:1 — 6,956 lines (89× 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.
1,110 errors caught and discarded in product code
adequate1,110 places catch an error and do nothing with it, across 450 files (0.6 per thousand lines). Each is a failure the system will not report. They surface later as problems nobody can explain, and they are cheap to fix now.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| acp_adapter/auth.py | acp_adapter/auth.py:25 — error caught and discarded |
| acp_adapter/tools.py | acp_adapter/tools.py:149 — error caught and discarded |
| acp_adapter/tools.py | acp_adapter/tools.py:688 — error caught and discarded |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 1 of 10 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑82 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequateapps/desktop/package.json declares 82 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.
| direct-dependencies | apps/desktop/package.json — 82 declared |
| direct-dependencies | pyproject.toml — 46 declared |
| direct-dependencies | web/package.json — 23 declared |
| direct-dependencies | apps/bootstrap-installer/package.json — 20 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.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑2 credential-shaped strings committed to the tree
adequateMatches for Slack token appear in tracked files outside test and fixture paths. They stay in the history even after they leave the tree, so what matters is whether each was rotated. 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.
| Slack token | 2 cited: Slack token pattern matched |
| 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.
1 Dockerfile runs 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 | 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.
148 SQL statements built from strings
adequate worth checking first148 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters, and in 65 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 agent/transcript_repair.py:74 and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| agent/transcript_repair.py | agent/transcript_repair.py:74 — SQL built from a string |
| cron/executions.py | cron/executions.py:596 — SQL built from a string |
| cron/incidents.py | cron/incidents.py:272 — 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.
3 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 2 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first3 of 2,209 locked dependencies match 4 published advisories in OSV, 3 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening uv.lock and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| uv.lock | uv.lock — brotlicffi 1.2.0.2: GHSA-9v8h-qqgm-4m35 (critical), fixed in 1.2.1.0; an optional extra |
| package-lock.json | package-lock.json — zod 4.4.3: GHSA-mrhx-c7xc-m3w5 (high), fixed in 4.6.6 |
| plugins/platforms/photon/sidecar/package-lock.json | plugins/platforms/photon/sidecar/package-lock.json — zod 4.5.4: GHSA-mrhx-c7xc-m3w5 (high), fixed in 4.6.6 |
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.
2 workload settings can give a container the host, behind a chart value or in a stack built from source
adequate2 places run a container privileged or in the host's namespaces only when a Helm value switches them on, or in a compose file that builds the product from this repository, which is how it is developed rather than how it ships. Neither is on by default in what ships. Ask whether production sets the value or runs that stack.
| docker-compose.yml | docker-compose.yml:35 — host access behind a setting or in a local stack |
| docker-compose.yml | docker-compose.yml:67 — host access behind a setting or in a local stack |
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
adequate4 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/bootstrap-installer.yml | .github/workflows/bootstrap-installer.yml:42 — 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.
19 shell commands built from strings
adequate19 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.
| agent/command_token_source.py | agent/command_token_source.py:55 — command run through a shell |
| apps/desktop/electron/main.ts | apps/desktop/electron/main.ts:8840 — command run through a shell |
| cli.py | cli.py:1251 — 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.
5 deserialisers that can run code
adequate5 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (`yaml.load` without a safe loader). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| plugins/security-guidance/patterns.py | plugins/security-guidance/patterns.py:44 — code-executing deserialiser |
| plugins/security-guidance/patterns.py | plugins/security-guidance/patterns.py:44 — code-executing deserialiser |
| plugins/security-guidance/patterns.py | plugins/security-guidance/patterns.py:146 — code-executing deserialiser |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
10 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate10 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.
| apps/desktop/src/app/chat/right-rail/preview-artifact.tsx | apps/desktop/src/app/chat/right-rail/preview-artifact.tsx:91 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/desktop/src/components/assistant-ui/embeds/svg-embed.tsx | apps/desktop/src/components/assistant-ui/embeds/svg-embed.tsx:29 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/desktop/src/components/chat/shiki-block.tsx | apps/desktop/src/components/chat/shiki-block.tsx:175 — HTML from a variable |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
2 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.
| native/fts5_cjk/vendor/sqlite3.h | native/fts5_cjk/vendor/sqlite3.h — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| native/fts5_cjk/vendor/sqlite3ext.h | native/fts5_cjk/vendor/sqlite3ext.h — 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.
15 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 4 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-21. 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 3 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 2026.9.24. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 6 records name hermes-agent with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-10548, CVE-2026-108593, CVE-2026-18774, …).
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-2026-114463 | 2026-10-21: CVE-2026-114463 (unrated): The webhook platform gateway in Nous Research Hermes Agent versions builds the session chat_id as webhook:{route_name}:{delivery_id} and re-derives the authoriz |
| CVE-2026-71963 | 2026-09-03: CVE-2026-71963 (high): Hermes Agent 0.18.2 through 0.21.0, fixed in commit f6234d0, contains a remote code execution vulnerability that allows attackers to execute arbitrary OS comman |
| CVE-2026-82020 | 2026-08-28: CVE-2026-82020 (high): Hermes Agent 0.16.0 prior to 0.17.0 contains an improper path restriction vulnerability that allows attackers who can influence ingested message content to over |
| CVE-2026-82021 | 2026-08-28: CVE-2026-82021 (critical): Hermes Agent 0.18.2 prior to 0.19.0 contains a supply chain vulnerability in its bundled MCP catalog that allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code by |
| CVE-2026-18976 | 2026-08-06: CVE-2026-18976 (low): A vulnerability was determined in NousResearch hermes-agent up to 0.16.0. This impacts the function get_tool_definitions of the file agent/agent_init.py of the |
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.nousresearch.com by default
adequatehermes_cli/config_defaults.py sends to telemetry.nousresearch.com, and agent/context_compressor.py 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.
| hermes_cli/config_defaults.py | hermes_cli/config_defaults.py:2335 — reports to telemetry.nousresearch.com |
| agent/context_compressor.py | agent/context_compressor.py:3792 — 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.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
2 of 2 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate2 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| docker-compose.windows.yml | docker-compose.windows.yml:25 — image without a version |
| docker-compose.yml | docker-compose.yml:64 — image without a version |
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
10 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 (apps/desktop/DESIGN.md and 6 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 coverageNot rated: only 1 of 10 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- measured One contributor authored a quarter or more of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured Experiment tracking is configured (wandb). Can the model that ships be tied to the run, data and code that produced it?
- measured No model card is in the tree. What is the model's intended use, what was it trained on, and where does it fail?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 05.1 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?
- measured 1 postmortem or incident write-up in the tree (evals/postmortem/README.md). Walk through the most recent one: what broke, how it was found, and what changed afterwards.
- 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, with Python alongside (44% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in apps/, hermes_cli/, agent/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 6 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/nousresearch/hermes-agent/290080e)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 — 86 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 86 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 — 45
| 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 (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026)files 26,217 · top5 share 0.025 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 75 · per kloc 0.04 · lines read 1,726,532 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 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 40 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 2 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 245 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 1 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 57 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 9,388 · source 16,221 · test ratio 0.579 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026)sampled 47,182 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) · low content share 0.0 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 57 · with tests 21 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 9,448 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 57 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 6 · commits since 351 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 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 13 · ci configs 57 · product files 6,856 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was a branch merged by a merge commit, developed on its own branch and landed in one piece (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 (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) · largest commits 4cdd1a3..9f3aa16 · bursts explained 10 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) · length stdev 21.15 · repeat share 0.013 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0044 · product files 6,841 · distinct blocks 1,066,201 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 6 |
| 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.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 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.dataset_provenance | little data is committeddata files 0 · licence or card files 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 2 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 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 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyed, in the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026)elsewhere 0 · on branch 29 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 41
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | history too short to compare code and test growth, in the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) |
| 04.churn_trend | history too short to read a churn trend, in the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 04.fix_share_trend | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 546 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 04.schema_churn | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 455 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 04.compat_layers | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 548 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were 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.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.release_markers | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 365 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.contributor_concentration | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 1095 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 1095 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.merge_discipline | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.revert_share | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.long_lived_branches | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.commit_size | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.unfinished_migration | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 365 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | too few notebooks |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 04.flags_accumulating | the history scanned covers 1 months, less than the 12 this question needs |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | the history scanned covers 1 months, less than the 18 this question needs |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | the history scanned covers 1 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.dependency_churn | the history scanned covers 1 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | the history scanned covers 1 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.releases_stopped | not assessed: the history read covers 164 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (13 May 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 6 records name hermes-agent with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-10548, CVE-2026-108593, CVE-2026-18774, …) |
| 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 GWR3-FNTQ-SPB4 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/GWR3FNTQSPB4?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: 1285.2authenticated: False |
| 169.5s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 310.6s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 20861 |
| 925.4s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 925.5s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 1351.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 1351.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 1351.0s ·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).