fe1fa7b · 109 commits · 14,923 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
101 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 11 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.60 Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → GPL-3.0 (2016-02-19) → Apache-2.0 (2020-10-30) LICENSE.txt
- 1 submodule(s) this survey does not read: web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/Products/Files/DocStore .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 72 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 22 high or critical in what ships
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 4 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- 1 finding about one contributor is withheld: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits; a buyer of this report reads them.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 1% 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
- only 97 non-merge commits to measure across
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑Commit messages are templated rather than written
adequate61% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 8.9 characters. A log written by someone explaining their reasoning to a future reader does not look like this. The log is therefore weak evidence of intent, whatever the code is like.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| commit-subjects | 18× 'Update README.md' |
| commit-subjects | 7× 'Update Roadmap.md' |
| commit-subjects | 4× 'add README.md' |
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.
web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/Products/Projects/js/ganttchart.js is 21,614 lines, 304× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 71 lines. 156 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 21,614. 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 96% 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 | web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/Products/Projects/js/ganttchart.js:1 — 21,614 lines (304× median) |
| line-count | web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/addons/calendar/UserControls/fullcalendar/fullcalendar.js:1 — 17,717 lines (249× median) |
| line-count | redistributable/docusign-csharp-client/DocuSign.eSign/Api/AccountsApi.cs:1 — 11,837 lines (166× median) |
| line-count | redistributable/docusign-csharp-client/DocuSign.eSign/Api/TemplatesApi.cs:1 — 10,767 lines (151× median) |
| line-count | web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/js/asc/api/asc.teamlab.js:1 — 9,375 lines (132× 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
adequate220 test files against 7,105 source files (3.1%). 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 | 220 test files / 7,105 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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them. What a person adds here.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑32 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate32 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Nov 2020. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| common/ASC.Core.Common/Notify/DirectSubscriptionProvider.cs | common/ASC.Core.Common/Notify/DirectSubscriptionProvider.cs — deprecated since Nov 2020 |
| module/ASC.Api/ASC.Api.Mail/MailApi.Messages.cs | module/ASC.Api/ASC.Api.Mail/MailApi.Messages.cs — deprecated since Nov 2020 |
| redistributable/AjaxPro/Attributes/AjaxMethodAttribute.cs | redistributable/AjaxPro/Attributes/AjaxMethodAttribute.cs — deprecated since Nov 2020 |
| redistributable/AjaxPro/Attributes/JavaScriptConverterAttribute.cs | redistributable/AjaxPro/Attributes/JavaScriptConverterAttribute.cs — deprecated since Nov 2020 |
| redistributable/AjaxPro/Attributes/__AjaxClassAttribute.cs | redistributable/AjaxPro/Attributes/__AjaxClassAttribute.cs — deprecated since Nov 2020 |
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 ↑None of the standard security guard rails are configured
adequateThere is no disclosure policy, no automated dependency updates, no named code owners and no pre-commit configuration. None of these is load-bearing on its own. Their collective absence says that security posture here is whatever the current team happens to remember to do, which is not a posture that survives the team changing.
| guardrail-scan | checked 5 kinds of guard rail across 14,923 tracked files; 0 present |
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.
72 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 22 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first72 of 596 locked dependencies match 161 published advisories in OSV, 102 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. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
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 module/ASC.WebDav/package-lock.json settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| module/ASC.WebDav/package-lock.json | module/ASC.WebDav/package-lock.json — form-data 2.3.3: GHSA-fjxv-7rqg-78g4 (critical), fixed in 2.5.4 |
| module/ASC.WebDav/package-lock.json | module/ASC.WebDav/package-lock.json — form-data 3.0.0: GHSA-fjxv-7rqg-78g4 (critical), fixed in 3.0.4 |
| module/ASC.WebDav/package-lock.json | module/ASC.WebDav/package-lock.json — json-schema 0.2.3: GHSA-896r-f27r-55mw (critical), fixed in 0.4.0 |
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.
4 SQL statements built from strings
adequate4 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 3 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.
| common/ASC.Data.Backup/DbBackupProvider.cs | common/ASC.Data.Backup/DbBackupProvider.cs:356 — SQL built from a string |
| common/ASC.Data.Backup/DbBackupProvider.cs | common/ASC.Data.Backup/DbBackupProvider.cs:364 — SQL built from a string |
| common/ASC.Data.Backup/Tasks/TransferPortalTask.cs | common/ASC.Data.Backup/Tasks/TransferPortalTask.cs:218 — 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.
22 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.
| web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/ThirdParty/Wordpress.aspx | web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/ThirdParty/Wordpress.aspx — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/ThirdParty/Wordpress.aspx.designer.cs | web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/ThirdParty/Wordpress.aspx.designer.cs — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/ThirdParty/oauth2.html | web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/ThirdParty/oauth2.html — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/ThirdParty/plugin | web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/ThirdParty/plugin — 42 tracked files, no licence file |
| web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/UserControls/Common/ckeditor/vendor/promise.js | web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/UserControls/Common/ckeditor/vendor/promise.js — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/addons/mail/js/third-party/linkify-html.min.js | web/studio/ASC.Web.Studio/addons/mail/js/third-party/linkify-html.min.js — 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.
Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → GPL-3.0 (2016-02-19) → Apache-2.0 (2020-10-30)
adequateThe root licence changed 2 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".
| 4adc9798a | LICENSE.txt — AGPL-3.0 from 2014-07-05 |
| 2d9b23777 | LICENSE.TXT — GPL-3.0 from 2016-02-19 |
| 619b622f5 | LICENSE — Apache-2.0 from 2020-10-30 |
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 telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere
adequateNone of 8,069 readable files references an instrumentation, metrics or error-reporting library. If this system is in production, nobody learns that it broke from the system itself — they learn it from a customer. That is a reliability finding before it is an observability one.
| telemetry-scan | searched 8,069 tracked text files for 16 known instrumentation libraries; manifests for metrics, tracing and error-reporting families; locked dependencies for the packages that emit; 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.
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.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
7 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 14,319 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- 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 coverageNot rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them.
- Which of the people who wrote this are part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- Is that code finished, or abandoned, and who still knows how it works?
- 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 A roadmap file is in the tree (Roadmap.md, last changed January 2022). A file is not a plan. Does it match the roadmap in the data room, and has the team delivered the last one it wrote?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a C# codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run C# in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in web/, redistributable/, module/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (module/ASC.SsoAuth/Procfile). 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/onlyoffice/communityserver/fe1fa7b)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 — 90 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 90 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 — 52
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 29,835 · top5 share 0.001 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 299 · per kloc 0.21 · lines read 1,401,328 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 7,433 · compat files 6 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 10 |
| 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 18 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 1 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.knowledge_silos | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 12 · window all history · with tracked 1 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 1 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 25 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 1 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 441 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 1 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 6 · commits since 3 · days since lockfile changed 1,074 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 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 2,538,190 · share of insertions 0.2092 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 12,374 · write once share 0.236 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0219 · product files 6,684 · distinct blocks 640,146 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,405,552 · files 214 · per kloc 0.36 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 8,069 |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 10,872,371 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 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.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 36 · added in two years 0 · removed within 60 days 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.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 209.0 · days since last tag 171 · commits last 90 days 0 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 1 · on branch 21 · tags in window 22 |
| 03.single_maintainer | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 05.project_advisories | no published advisory affects the surveyed versionaffecting 0 · exploited 0 · advisories 0 |
| 05.advisory_record | no advisory against the project in the last 24 monthscritical 0 · affecting 0 · could not tell 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 38
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 |
| 04.churn_trend | history too short to read a churn trend |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | too few fixes in 24 months to judge |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for C#: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.release_markers | fewer than 100 commits in the last year |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.conventional_commits | too few commits to judge whether the log is written for a reader |
| 02.revert_share | too few recent commits to judge how often change is undone |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 02.commit_size | too few recent commits |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | no CI actions or pipe-to-shell installs to check |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for C#, 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.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 2CEZ-XQ4J-R4JG 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/2CEZXQ4JR4JG?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: 260.0authenticated: False |
| 16.1s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 34.4s | read the git history | commits: 109tracked files: 14923 |
| 465.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 465.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 803.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 803.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 803.0s ·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).