0eb688c · 4,073 commits · 3,065 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing proven significant. 2 findings are worth checking first.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 2 findings are worth checking first. 15 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 3 November 2026.
- 03.60 The project says one person maintains it GOVERNANCE.md:91
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/pull_request_template.md:27
- names Cloud Native Computing Foundation GOVERNANCE.md:3
- names CNCF GOVERNANCE.md:15
- names OpenSSF README.md:33
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here may be significant, and its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 4 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 | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 48% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- 24% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑internal/dataplane/kubernetes/types/argoproj.io/workflow/v1alpha1/workflow_types.go is 2,749 lines, 17× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 153 lines. 5 files exceed 1,530 lines, the largest being 2,749. 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 | internal/dataplane/kubernetes/types/argoproj.io/workflow/v1alpha1/workflow_types.go:1 — 2,749 lines (17× median) |
| line-count | internal/occ/resources/client/openapi_client.go:1 — 2,126 lines (13× median) |
| line-count | internal/controller/releasebinding/controller.go:1 — 1,794 lines (11× median) |
| line-count | internal/cluster-gateway/server.go:1 — 1,622 lines (10× median) |
| line-count | install/quick-start/.helpers.sh:1 — 1,597 lines (10× 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 ↑5% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate168 of 3226 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| git log --numstat | 168 commits over 2,000 lines |
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.
Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (test/ui/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.
| test/ui/playwright.config.ts | test/ui/playwright.config.ts:28 — 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 ↑The project says one person maintains it
adequateIts own files say so. Whatever the commit counts show, the project describes itself as depending on one person.
| GOVERNANCE.md | GOVERNANCE.md:91 — says it has a single maintainer |
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 · strong · ratings ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v1.3.3, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v1.0.0. 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.
| 5336791f4 | tag v1.3.3 |
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 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.
| private key block | private key block, 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.
2 Dockerfiles run 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 | install/base-images/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | install/quick-start/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.
5 SQL statements built from strings
adequate worth checking first5 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters, and in 5 of them a value, not a table or column name, goes into the string. Where any of those values comes from a request, it is an injection point. Each site needs a look; the fix, parameters, is small.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening internal/observer/store/alertentry/sql.go:268 and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| internal/observer/store/alertentry/sql.go | internal/observer/store/alertentry/sql.go:268 — SQL built from a string |
| internal/observer/store/deliveryinsights/sql.go | internal/observer/store/deliveryinsights/sql.go:715 — SQL built from a string |
| internal/observer/store/deliveryinsights/sql.go | internal/observer/store/deliveryinsights/sql.go:927 — 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.
6 workload settings give a container the host
adequate worth checking first6 places in the deployment configuration run a container privileged or in the host's network, process or IPC namespace. A compromise of that container is a compromise of the machine, and most acquirers' security reviews block it. Node agents (network, storage, monitoring) are excluded.
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 install/k3d/build-cache/workflow-templates/ballerina-buildpack-build.yaml:185 and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| install/k3d/build-cache/workflow-templates/ballerina-buildpack-build.yaml | install/k3d/build-cache/workflow-templates/ballerina-buildpack-build.yaml:185 — privileged or host namespace |
| install/k3d/build-cache/workflow-templates/containerfile-build.yaml | install/k3d/build-cache/workflow-templates/containerfile-build.yaml:169 — privileged or host namespace |
| install/k3d/build-cache/workflow-templates/gcp-buildpacks-build.yaml | install/k3d/build-cache/workflow-templates/gcp-buildpacks-build.yaml:175 — privileged or host namespace |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
3 credential-shaped strings added in the history 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| history | 2 cited: private key block, where fakes are usual |
| history | JWT, 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.
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.
| install/k3d/k3d-install.sh | install/k3d/k3d-install.sh:7 — 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.
4 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate4 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.
| internal/observer/api/finopsadapterclientgen/client.gen.go | internal/observer/api/finopsadapterclientgen/client.gen.go:312 — outbound call without a timeout |
| internal/observer/api/gen/client.gen.go | internal/observer/api/gen/client.gen.go:67 — outbound call without a timeout |
| internal/observer/api/logsadapterclientgen/client.gen.go | internal/observer/api/logsadapterclientgen/client.gen.go:1429 — 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.
12 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 7 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-07. 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 6 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 1.0.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-46r4-q7wv-32fc (high), GHSA-2mw5-23gm-pccq (high), GHSA-52gf-6rpq-fgmx (high) and 3 more are fixed in the surveyed commit; which release carries them cannot be told from this history, which does not place the release users run. Answer lives in: the version you run.
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-m5rc-cqvf-f4p9 | 2026-10-07: GHSA-m5rc-cqvf-f4p9 (high), fixed in 1.1.8: IDOR in RCA/FinOps report endpoints enables cross-project report disclosure |
| GHSA-cffr-jmrq-w94j | 2026-10-07: GHSA-cffr-jmrq-w94j (moderate), fixed in 1.1.8: Missing authentication on internal observability-plane APIs enables cluster-wide unauthenticated access. |
| GHSA-226f-v3rg-rmmj | 2026-09-15: GHSA-226f-v3rg-rmmj (low), fixed in 1.0.6: Observer: GET /api/v1alpha1/traces/{traceId}/spans/{spanId} performs no search-scope authorization |
| GHSA-46r4-q7wv-32fc | 2026-09-09: GHSA-46r4-q7wv-32fc (high), fixed in 1.0.6: OpenChoreo: Authorization bypass on WorkflowRun update allows cross-project takeover of workflow runs |
| GHSA-h8w4-3g2x-38gc | 2026-09-09: GHSA-h8w4-3g2x-38gc (moderate), fixed in 1.0.6: Unbounded CEL evaluation cost in the shared template engine enables controller denial-of-service from tenant-authored templates |
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 ↑Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 5 of 11 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.
| install/helm/openchoreo-control-plane/templates/backstage/deployment.yaml | install/helm/openchoreo-control-plane/templates/backstage/deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| install/helm/openchoreo-control-plane/templates/portal-assistant/deployment.yaml | install/helm/openchoreo-control-plane/templates/portal-assistant/deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| install/helm/openchoreo-observability-plane/templates/finops-agent/deployment.yaml | install/helm/openchoreo-observability-plane/templates/finops-agent/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.
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
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 1,606 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 63 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 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 Go codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in internal/, install/, config/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 218 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/openchoreo/openchoreo/0eb688c)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 — 88 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 88 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 — 72
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 7,598 · top5 share 0.028 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 179 · per kloc 0.25 · lines read 714,093 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.61 · early test per code 0.392 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.565 · early delete per insert 0.367 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 762 · share 0.291 · with tests 222 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 1,105 · compat files 1 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 26 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 293 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.print_logging | raw prints are few, or outnumbered by logger callsprints 8 · logger calls 2,790 |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 55 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.alert_rules | alert rules are defined as codealert files 1 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 1 · floating 0 |
| 06.single_replica | an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 16 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 5 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 55 · release commits 12 · changelog commits 77 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 1.8 · window last 24 months · authors 63 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 63 · active 12mo 55 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 63 · directories 11 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 63 · one off share 0.365 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 63 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed between three and six months ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 63 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 3 · joined 13 · regular last year 25 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 39 · window last 24 months · with tracked 46 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 19 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,022 · source 2,106 · test ratio 0.485 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 60 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 4,034 · low content share 0.004 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 19 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 7 · test files 1,130 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 19 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 7 · recent commits 3,658 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 6 · commits since 26 · days since lockfile changed 6 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 5 · ci configs 19 · product files 1,105 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.03 · merges 33 · long lived 1 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was data and assets (95% 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 4a15138..2fbd48a · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 6,455 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 2,276 · share of insertions 0.0014 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 23.24 · repeat share 0.034 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,463 · write once share 0.334 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0103 · product files 1,084 · distinct blocks 124,621 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 717,077 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 17 |
| 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.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.resource_limits | every workload declares limitsworkloads 16 · without limits 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_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 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.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 21 |
| 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 5 · commits last 90 days 267 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 16
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 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_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.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD did not; 6 are 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 GBDW-3195-30KV 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/GBDW319530KV?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: 43.5authenticated: False |
| 8.9s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 16.3s | read the git history | commits: 4073tracked files: 3065 |
| 209.8s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 209.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 335.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 335.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 335.0s ·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).