320a0ce · 22,829 commits · 11,072 files
Issued 2026-10-04
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Organization & Key-Person Risk.
102 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 13 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 1 submodule(s) this survey does not read: .source .gitmodules:1
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 05.26 33 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 30 high or critical in what ships
- 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 | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 12% 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 ↑.agents/skills/figma-use/references/plugin-api-standalone.d.ts is 11,429 lines, 190× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 60 lines. 31 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 11,429. 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 90% 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 | .agents/skills/figma-use/references/plugin-api-standalone.d.ts:1 — 11,429 lines (190× median) |
| line-count | enterprise/workers/step-resolver/worker-configuration.d.ts:1 — 10,924 lines (182× median) |
| line-count | packages/framework/src/jsonSchemaFaker.js:1 — 6,070 lines (101× median) |
| line-count | packages/shared/src/utils/locales/locales.ts:1 — 5,317 lines (88× median) |
| line-count | packages/shared/src/consts/providers/mcp-servers.ts:1 — 2,672 lines (44× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (apps/dashboard/playwright.config.ts). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| apps/dashboard/playwright.config.ts | apps/dashboard/playwright.config.ts:27 — test retry |
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 17 to 10 in a year
adequate8 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 2 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.
| regular contributors by year | 17 then 10; 8 stopped committing, 2 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 ↑129 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequateapps/dashboard/package.json declares 129 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/dashboard/package.json — 129 declared |
| direct-dependencies | apps/api/package.json — 100 declared |
| direct-dependencies | libs/application-generic/package.json — 84 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/providers/package.json — 50 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 ↑1 credential-shaped string 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. 3 other matchs set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
| Slack token | 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.
33 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 30 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first33 of 5,550 locked dependencies match 140 published advisories in OSV, 61 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 pnpm-lock.yaml settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — next 16.3.4: GHSA-vcvr-r3jv-pc5j (critical), fixed in 16.3.6 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — piscina 4.9.3: GHSA-67c8-pqhq-4rmx (critical), fixed in 4.9.4; a development dependency |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — @faker-js/faker 6.3.1: GHSA-qxc2-j82w-r537 (high), fixed in 10.5.0 |
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.
The production build publishes source maps
adequateThe build configuration emits source maps for production, so the original source, with its comments and structure, is downloadable by every visitor. Upload them to an error tracker and keep them off the public server instead.
| apps/api/webpack.config.js | apps/api/webpack.config.js:4 — source maps in a production build |
| apps/dashboard/vite.config.ts | apps/dashboard/vite.config.ts:143 — source maps in a production build |
| apps/worker/webpack.config.js | apps/worker/webpack.config.js:3 — source maps in a production build |
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.
9 environment files are committed
adequateapps/api/src/.env.agent, apps/api/src/.env.production, apps/dashboard/.env.agent and more are tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| apps/api/src/.env.agent | apps/api/src/.env.agent — committed environment file |
| apps/api/src/.env.production | apps/api/src/.env.production — committed environment file |
| apps/dashboard/.env.agent | apps/dashboard/.env.agent — committed environment file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate1 step pipes 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.
| .cursor/Dockerfile | .cursor/Dockerfile:44 — 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.
6 shell commands built from strings
adequate6 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.
| apps/inbound-mail/src/python/DNS/Base.py | apps/inbound-mail/src/python/DNS/Base.py:417 — command run through a shell |
| packages/add-inbox/src/config/package-manager.ts | packages/add-inbox/src/config/package-manager.ts:135 — command run through a shell |
| packages/novu/src/commands/connect/pipeline/bridge-adapter/run-bridge.ts | packages/novu/src/commands/connect/pipeline/bridge-adapter/run-bridge.ts:20 — 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.
11 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate11 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/dashboard/src/components/maily/views/html-view.tsx | apps/dashboard/src/components/maily/views/html-view.tsx:106 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/dashboard/src/components/primitives/chart.tsx | apps/dashboard/src/components/primitives/chart.tsx:72 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/dashboard/src/components/workflow-editor/steps/email/configure-email-step-preview.tsx | apps/dashboard/src/components/workflow-editor/steps/email/configure-email-step-preview.tsx:46 — 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.
1 vendored component 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/shared/scripts/vendor/whatsapp-messages.openapi.json | packages/shared/scripts/vendor/whatsapp-messages.openapi.json — 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.
30 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 9 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-07-09. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 2 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 3.19.0. 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-9mvf-8qqp-4mfc | 2026-07-09: GHSA-9mvf-8qqp-4mfc (moderate), fixed in 3.18.0: Persistent DoS via a single authenticated preview request (second-order prototype pollution) |
| GHSA-f37j-mqhm-fvh9 | 2026-07-08: GHSA-f37j-mqhm-fvh9 (moderate), fixed in 3.18.0: Novu environment-scoped API key can read a sibling environments workflow via a caller-supplied environmentId |
| GHSA-wjx8-c9gq-37gg | 2026-07-08: GHSA-wjx8-c9gq-37gg (moderate), fixed in 3.18.0: Inbox subscriber can delete another subscriber's scheduled unsnooze job (cross-subscriber IDOR) |
| GHSA-whjp-9qvh-r3gj | 2026-07-08: GHSA-whjp-9qvh-r3gj (low), fixed in 3.18.0: Multiple non-constant-time secret/signature comparisons (CWE-208) in apps/api |
| GHSA-x4qm-j29v-j3qj | 2026-07-08: GHSA-x4qm-j29v-j3qj (moderate), fixed in 3.18.0: SSRF filter bypass: alternate IPv6 encodings classified as public in isPrivateIp (webhook/outbound URL validation) |
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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
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 The tree carries design documentation (.cursor/skills/ink-tui/references/ARCHITECTURE.md and 5 more). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- 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 495 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 05.1 and 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 apps/, libs/, packages/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 31% of lines added in the last 12 months (13% 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 (.cursor/Dockerfile and 8 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/novuhq/novu/320a0ce)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 — 89 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 89 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 — 75
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 26,023 · top5 share 0.016 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 148 · per kloc 0.13 · lines read 1,118,860 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.207 · early test per code 0.322 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.525 · early delete per insert 0.468 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 2,771 · share 0.319 · with tests 883 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 0 · columns added last year 20 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 7,383 · 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 209 |
| 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 85 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 19 · config files 0 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 3 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 6 · floating 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 8 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 84 · release commits 1 · changelog commits 8 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 06.feature_flags | a feature-flag service is configured and usedsdk files 14 · evaluation sites 93 |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 5.1 · window last 24 months · authors 495 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 495 · active 12mo 59 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 495 · directories 8 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 495 · one off share 0.392 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 495 · 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 92 |
| 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 13 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 46 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,123 · source 8,500 · test ratio 0.132 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 299 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 16,405 · low content share 0.02 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 46 · with tests 7 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 7 · test files 1,132 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 46 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.006 · reverts 24 · recent commits 4,161 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 0 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 42 · ci configs 46 · product files 7,383 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.05 · commits 3,848 · over 2000 lines 191 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 536 · share of insertions 0.0001 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 23.77 · repeat share 0.14 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 7,923 · write once share 0.345 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0197 · product files 7,377 · distinct blocks 496,459 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,128,292 · files 5 · per kloc 0.01 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 21 |
| 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.container_runs_as_root | every shipped Dockerfile drops to a non-root user or builds on a non-root base imagedockerfiles 6 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 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.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 1 |
| 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.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the historylive 0 · retired 1 · flags seen 1 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 394 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.0 · days since last tag -2 · commits last 90 days 680 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 13 · on branch 91 · tags in window 104 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 14
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 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.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 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.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 3 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version could not be placed |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter APQA-M7QR-VYBH 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/APQAM7QRVYBH?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-04 · shown | borehole 0.7.13 | 17 | adequate |
8 earlier (show)
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 18 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 18 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 18 | 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 — 3 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 | re-read from the facts kept at the last survey; nothing was cloned | facts version: 1d7c04ef8dca7905 |
| 39.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 39.6s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
Total 39.6s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).