4a750ae · 11,192 commits · 9,514 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Reads strong: 4 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Observability & Operations are adequate. 1 finding is worth checking first. 17 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
This repository reads strong. Show it in your README: the badge links to a page where anyone can check the reading. 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/KDWVZSY2J0XQ?via=badge)- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 05.60 Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → MIT (2023-05-10) LICENSE
- 05.61 Part of the code is under a separate licence: backend/ee/, web/src/app/ee/, web/src/ee/ backend/ee/LICENSE
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 30 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 4 high or critical in what ships
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 5 credential-shaped matches are withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 23% 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 ↑backend/onyx/db/models.py is 7,805 lines, 72× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 107 lines. 79 files exceed 1,070 lines, the largest being 7,805. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | backend/onyx/db/models.py:1 — 7,805 lines (72× median) |
| line-count | web/src/app/craft/hooks/useBuildSessionStore.ts:1 — 3,772 lines (35× median) |
| line-count | backend/onyx/server/features/mcp/api.py:1 — 3,598 lines (33× median) |
| line-count | backend/onyx/auth/users.py:1 — 3,393 lines (31× median) |
| line-count | backend/onyx/server/manage/llm/api.py:1 — 3,301 lines (30× 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 (web/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.
| web/playwright.config.ts | web/playwright.config.ts:18 — 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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v4.9.4, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v4.2.0. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| 4cfda3c38 | tag v4.9.4 |
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 ↑21 credential-shaped strings in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings
adequateStrings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key. 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.
| AWS access key | 2 cited: AWS access key, where fakes are usual |
| Slack token | 3 cited: Slack token, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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 | backend/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.
30 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 4 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first30 of 1,120 locked dependencies match 72 published advisories in OSV, 17 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 uv.lock settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| uv.lock | uv.lock — aiohttp 3.14.3: GHSA-2g87-pp6c-29x5 (high), fixed in 3.14.4 |
| uv.lock | uv.lock — fsspec 2025.10.0: GHSA-27vj-qcqg-25rc (high), fixed in 2026.6.0 |
| uv.lock | uv.lock — graphql-core 3.2.8: GHSA-r77w-qph3-7vf8 (high), fixed in 3.2.12; a development dependency |
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.
Part of the code is under a separate licence: backend/ee/, web/src/app/ee/, web/src/ee/
adequateA directory named for a paid edition carries its own licence. That code is usually not open source even where the rest is; what the buyer may do with each part differs.
| backend/ee/LICENSE | backend/ee/LICENSE — licence: unrecognised |
| web/src/app/ee/LICENSE | web/src/app/ee/LICENSE — licence: unrecognised |
| web/src/ee/LICENSE | web/src/ee/LICENSE — licence: unrecognised |
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
adequate3 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.
| deployment/docker_compose/install.sh | deployment/docker_compose/install.sh:8 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
12 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate12 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| backend/ee/onyx/server/oauth/confluence_cloud.py | backend/ee/onyx/server/oauth/confluence_cloud.py:208 — outbound call without a timeout |
| backend/ee/onyx/server/oauth/confluence_cloud.py | backend/ee/onyx/server/oauth/confluence_cloud.py:300 — outbound call without a timeout |
| backend/ee/onyx/server/oauth/google_drive.py | backend/ee/onyx/server/oauth/google_drive.py:168 — outbound call without a timeout |
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 deserialisers that can run code
adequate4 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (pickle). 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.
| backend/onyx/background/celery/configs/base.py | backend/onyx/background/celery/configs/base.py:190 — code-executing deserialiser |
| backend/onyx/indexing/chunk_batch_store.py | backend/onyx/indexing/chunk_batch_store.py:55 — code-executing deserialiser |
| backend/onyx/utils/isolated_runner.py | backend/onyx/utils/isolated_runner.py:26 — 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.
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.
| extensions/chrome/src/utils/error-modal.js | extensions/chrome/src/utils/error-modal.js:267 — HTML from a variable |
| extensions/chrome/src/utils/error-modal.js | extensions/chrome/src/utils/error-modal.js:329 — HTML from a variable |
| web/src/app/app/message/messageComponents/renderers/CustomToolRenderer.tsx | web/src/app/app/message/messageComponents/renderers/CustomToolRenderer.tsx:51 — 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.
Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → MIT (2023-05-10)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".
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 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-04. 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 4 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 4.2.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-7f48-vgpj-h95m (moderate) is fixed in the surveyed commit; which release carries it cannot be told from this history, which does not place the release users run. Answer lives in: the version you run. The record is incomplete: NVD: 7 records name onyx with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2020-11584, CVE-2023-43784, CVE-2024-0101, …).
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-2026-85700 | 2026-09-04: CVE-2026-85700 (high): Onyx 4.6.6 fails to properly restrict access to custom tool credentials stored in custom_headers, allowing any authenticated user to read admin-defined API keys |
| GHSA-7f48-vgpj-h95m | 2026-07-20: GHSA-7f48-vgpj-h95m (moderate), fixed in 4.3.0: Curator-scope IDOR: any curator can modify membership of arbitrary user groups via unscoped PATCH /manage/admin/user-group/{id} and /add-users leading to cross- |
| GHSA-q62f-rv3h-f822 | 2026-07-20: GHSA-q62f-rv3h-f822 (critical), fixed in 4.0.0+: Cross-user OAuth-token leak via /api/mcp/servers* for per-user MCP servers |
| GHSA-rw6w-hp62-gc8w | 2026-04-29: GHSA-rw6w-hp62-gc8w (moderate), fixed in 3.0.9: IDOR in /chat/stop-chat-session allows any authenticated user to interrupt other users chat sessions |
| GHSA-vg3h-35f7-7w6r | 2026-04-29: GHSA-vg3h-35f7-7w6r (moderate), fixed in 3.0.9: IDOR in /chat/file/{file_id} allows any authenticated user to download other users 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.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑Sends usage data to telemetry.onyx.app by default
adequatebackend/onyx/utils/fleet_telemetry.py sends to telemetry.onyx.app, and backend/onyx/background/celery/tasks/monitoring/tasks.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.
| backend/onyx/utils/fleet_telemetry.py | backend/onyx/utils/fleet_telemetry.py:35 — reports to telemetry.onyx.app |
| backend/onyx/background/celery/tasks/monitoring/tasks.py | backend/onyx/background/celery/tasks/monitoring/tasks.py:324 — the reporting setting is on by default |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 2 of 12 workloads
adequateBoth probes call the same endpoint. When a dependency slows down, the liveness probe fails with the readiness probe, so the platform restarts pods that only needed taking out of rotation, and a partial outage becomes a full one. Liveness should ask whether the process is alive; readiness whether it can serve.
| deployment/helm/charts/onyx/templates/mcp-server-deployment.yaml | deployment/helm/charts/onyx/templates/mcp-server-deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| deployment/helm/charts/onyx/templates/sandbox-proxy/deployment.yaml | deployment/helm/charts/onyx/templates/sandbox-proxy/deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Schema migrations run every time a container starts
adequateThe start command runs the database migration and then the server, and the deployment runs more than one replica. Replicas race to migrate, a rollback cannot undo the schema, and a failed migration takes the service down with it. A separate job or release step is the usual fix.
| cli/internal/deploy/deployfiles/embedded/docker_compose/docker-compose.prod.yml | cli/internal/deploy/deployfiles/embedded/docker_compose/docker-compose.prod.yml:19 — migration in the start command |
| cli/internal/deploy/deployfiles/embedded/docker_compose/docker-compose.yml | cli/internal/deploy/deployfiles/embedded/docker_compose/docker-compose.yml:56 — migration in the start command |
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 of 14 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate4 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.
| deployment/docker_compose/docker-compose.prod.yml | deployment/docker_compose/docker-compose.prod.yml:470 — image without a version |
| deployment/helm/charts/onyx/Chart.yaml | deployment/helm/charts/onyx/Chart.yaml:19 — image without a version |
| deployment/helm/charts/onyx/Chart.yaml | deployment/helm/charts/onyx/Chart.yaml:21 — 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
9 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 5,572 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 201 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured 5,964 commits landed in the last year, against 2,309 the year before (+158%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- 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 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 Alert rules are defined in the repository. 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, with Python alongside (47% 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 backend/, web/, deployment/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 34% of lines added in the last 12 months (26% 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 (backend/Dockerfile and 236 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/onyx-dot-app/onyx/4a750ae)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 — 87 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 87 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 — 77
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 16,513 · top5 share 0.015 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 327 · per kloc 0.18 · lines read 1,817,476 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.514 · early delete per insert 0.475 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 2,998 · share 0.411 · with tests 1,231 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 1 · columns added last year 203 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 4,661 · compat files 6 |
| 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 81 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 97 |
| 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 59 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 4 · config files 4 |
| 06.alert_rules | alert rules are defined as codealert files 8 |
| 06.single_replica | an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 19 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 1,215 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 18 |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 3.5 · window last 24 months · authors 201 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 201 · active 12mo 58 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 201 · directories 11 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 201 · one off share 0.562 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 201 · 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 103 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 11 · joined 14 · regular last year 26 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 100 · window last 24 months · with tracked 12 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 53 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 3,105 · source 7,610 · test ratio 0.408 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 2,546 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 11,070 · low content share 0.016 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 53 · with tests 13 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 92 · test files 3,224 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 53 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 22 · recent commits 8,282 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 6 · commits since 30 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 17 · ci configs 53 · product files 4,661 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.0 · merges 85 · long lived 0 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.04 · commits 7,701 · over 2000 lines 306 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was merged pull requests, each developed and reviewed on its own branch (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays itlargest commits 2347a7b..7f12bab · bursts explained 11 · largest net added 11,266 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 661 · share of insertions 0.0002 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.04 · repeat share 0.014 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 5,125 · write once share 0.308 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0059 · product files 4,509 · distinct blocks 544,313 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,826,289 · files 74 · per kloc 0.07 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 9 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.069 · migrations 507 · irreversible 35 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.resource_limits | every workload declares limitsworkloads 20 · without limits 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 1 |
| 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_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 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 1 · retired 3 · flags seen 4 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 10 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 366 · added in two years 349 · removed within 60 days 5 |
| 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 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 1,864 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 10
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | tests are kept inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | too few notebooks |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV PyPI onyx-cli (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @onyx-ai/opal (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 7 records name onyx with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2020-11584, CVE-2023-43784, CVE-2024-0101, …); 1 is fixed in the surveyed commit, and the release users run is not placed by this history |
| 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 KDWV-ZSY2-J0XQ 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/KDWVZSY2J0XQ?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: 295.9authenticated: False |
| 46.4s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 77.0s | read the git history | commits: 11192tracked files: 9514 |
| 507.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 507.1s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 833.9s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 833.9s | deleting the working copy |
Total 833.9s ·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).