b86338d · 5,254 commits · 8,107 files
Issued 2026-10-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity.
102 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 10 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions CONTRIBUTING.md:212
- 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.
- The file and line of 1 credential-shaped match is withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 16% 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
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑Commit messages are templated rather than written
adequate31% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 16.4 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 | 668× 'autogen(docs): regenerate and update changelog' |
| commit-subjects | 238× 'autogen(docs): generate and format documentation' |
| commit-subjects | 151× 'autogen(docs): update milestone document' |
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.
pkg/client-go/api_frontend.go is 6,730 lines, 6730× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 1 lines. 13 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 6,730. 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 99% 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 | pkg/client-go/api_frontend.go:1 — 6,730 lines (6730× median) |
| line-count | pkg/httpclient/api_frontend.go:1 — 6,730 lines (6730× median) |
| line-count | pkg/client-go/api_identity.go:1 — 3,809 lines (3809× median) |
| line-count | pkg/httpclient/api_identity.go:1 — 3,809 lines (3809× median) |
| line-count | persistence/sql/identity/persister_identity.go:1 — 2,189 lines (2189× 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
adequate517 test files against 6,717 source files (7.7%). 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 | 517 test files / 6,717 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.
Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (test/e2e/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/e2e/playwright.config.ts | test/e2e/playwright.config.ts:16 — 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 · adequate · ratings ↑89 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequateoryx/go.mod declares 89 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.
| direct-dependencies | oryx/go.mod — 89 declared |
| direct-dependencies | go.mod — 80 declared |
| direct-dependencies | package.json — 2 declared |
| direct-dependencies | oryx/randx/strength/go.mod — 1 declared |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Node.js 16 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 16 (end of life 2023-09-11). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2023-09-11. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .nvmrc | .nvmrc — Node.js 16, end of life 2023-09-11 |
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.
| JWT | 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
adequate24 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day; 1 step pipes a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/ci.yaml | .github/workflows/ci.yaml:50 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/ci.yaml | .github/workflows/ci.yaml:59 — action pinned by tag |
| install.sh | install.sh:42 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
8 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 13 high or critical
adequate8 of 452 locked dependencies match 28 published advisories in OSV, 13 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. None of the high or critical ones is in what the product ships: only the build reaches them: a bundler, a code generator, a build plugin, or a lockfile in a tooling directory.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| package-lock.json | package-lock.json — axios 1.18.1: GHSA-3pq3-5fj3-cg6v (high), fixed in 1.20.0; reached only by the build |
| package-lock.json | package-lock.json — basic-ftp 5.3.1: GHSA-c475-qrg2-pj4r (high), fixed in 6.2.1; reached only by the build |
| package-lock.json | package-lock.json — brace-expansion 5.0.7: GHSA-6j4f-fj2g-mc7p (high), fixed in 5.0.10; reached only by the build |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
2 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-03-20. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 2 records name kratos with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-42300, CVE-2026-6993).
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-hgx2-28f8-6g2r | 2026-03-20: GHSA-hgx2-28f8-6g2r (high), fixed in 1.3.1-0.20260320110106-9d7085948039: Ory Kratos has a SQL injection via forged pagination tokens |
| GHSA-wc43-73w7-x2f5 | 2024-09-26: GHSA-wc43-73w7-x2f5 (moderate), fixed in 1.3.0: Ory Kratos's setting required_aal `highest_available` does not properly respect code + mfa credentials |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
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
4 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 7,241 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 One contributor authored more than half of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- measured contrib/ (less than a quarter of the files) has not changed in 18 months while the rest of the repository moved. 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 460 commits landed in the last year, against 246 the year before (+87%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- 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 coverageNot rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- 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 pkg/, selfservice/, oryx/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 53% of lines added in the last 12 months (3% 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?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- 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/ory/kratos/b86338d)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 — 92 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 92 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 — 62
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 23,122 · top5 share 0.019 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 54 · per kloc 0.12 · lines read 436,046 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.372 · early test per code 0.351 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.472 · early delete per insert 0.626 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 286 · share 0.626 · with tests 179 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 0 · columns added last year 31 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.082 · code files 6,207 · compat files 512 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 7,935 |
| 06.structured_logging | not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 8.2 · window last 24 months · authors 244 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 244 · active 12mo 21 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 244 · directories 20 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 244 · one off share 0.623 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 244 · top share more than half · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 32 |
| 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 0 · joined 10 · regular last year 16 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 9 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 12 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 81 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 5,225 · low content share 0.003 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 12 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 6 · test files 656 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 12 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 706 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 12 · commits since 12 · days since lockfile changed 2 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 6 · ci configs 12 · product files 6,207 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.034 · commits 621 · over 2000 lines 21 |
| 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 203 · share of insertions 0.0001 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 440,218 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 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.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_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.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 3 · files with deprecations 176 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 393 · added in two years 59 · removed within 60 days 2 |
| 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 89.0 · days since last tag 197 · commits last 90 days 54 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 1 · on branch 73 · tags in window 74 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 30
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 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 outside development, test and example paths |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 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_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 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 2 records name kratos with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-42300, CVE-2026-6993) |
| 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 FJDS-FNX1-F189 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/FJDSFNX1F189?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-03 · shown | borehole 0.7.12 | 14 | adequate |
4 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 14 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 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: 96.1authenticated: False |
| 11.8s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 24.2s | read the git history | commits: 5254tracked files: 8107 |
| 163.3s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 163.4s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 255.4s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 255.4s | deleting the working copy |
Total 255.4s ·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).