9469149 · 23,084 commits · 19,968 files
Issued 2026-10-28
Reads strong: 4 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
101 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Product & Engineering Maturity are adequate. 16 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/E01S33TCDXFN?via=badge)- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 5 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 2 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 | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 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 ↑Commit messages are templated rather than written
adequate30% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 18.5 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 | 2310× 'Automated changelog update [skip ci]' |
| commit-subjects | 478× '[tx] updated from transifex' |
| commit-subjects | 114× 'add changelog' |
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.
services/graph/pkg/identity/ldap.go is 1,773 lines, 26× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 66 lines. 9 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 1,773. 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 | services/graph/pkg/identity/ldap.go:1 — 1,773 lines (26× median) |
| line-count | ocis/pkg/command/shares.go:1 — 1,694 lines (25× median) |
| line-count | services/collaboration/pkg/connector/fileconnector.go:1 — 1,611 lines (24× median) |
| line-count | web/packages/web-pkg/src/components/FilesList/ResourceTable.vue:1 — 1,430 lines (21× median) |
| line-count | services/graph/pkg/service/v0/base.go:1 — 1,330 lines (20× 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/tests/e2e/docs/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/tests/e2e/docs/playwright.config.ts | web/tests/e2e/docs/playwright.config.ts:15 — 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 ↑109 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatego.mod declares 109 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 | go.mod — 109 declared |
| direct-dependencies | web/packages/web-pkg/package.json — 47 declared |
| direct-dependencies | web/packages/web-runtime/package.json — 39 declared |
| direct-dependencies | web/packages/design-system/package.json — 15 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.
Go 1.25 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Go 1.25 (end of life 2026-08-11). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2026-08-11. 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.
| Dockerfile | Dockerfile — Go 1.25, end of life 2026-08-11 |
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.
128 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate128 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Apr 2023. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| vendor/github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go/aws/awserr/error.go | vendor/github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go/aws/awserr/error.go — deprecated since Apr 2023 |
| vendor/github.com/BurntSushi/toml/deprecated.go | vendor/github.com/BurntSushi/toml/deprecated.go — deprecated since Apr 2023 |
| vendor/github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go/aws/endpoints/defaults.go | vendor/github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go/aws/endpoints/defaults.go — deprecated since Apr 2023 |
| vendor/github.com/beevik/etree/etree.go | vendor/github.com/beevik/etree/etree.go — deprecated since Apr 2023 |
| vendor/contrib.go.opencensus.io/exporter/prometheus/prometheus.go | vendor/contrib.go.opencensus.io/exporter/prometheus/prometheus.go — deprecated since Apr 2023 |
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.
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v8.2.2, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v7.0.0. 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.
| fbd21b636 | tag v8.2.2 |
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 ↑2 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.
| JWT | 2 cited: 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.
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 | 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.
Manifest says ISC, licence file says Apache-2.0
adequatepackage.json declares ISC. LICENSE contains the text of Apache-2.0. Package managers and downstream users read the first; auditors and acquirers read the second. One of them is wrong, and until it is settled the terms this code is offered under are genuinely ambiguous.
| package.json | package.json:11 — declares ISC |
| LICENSE | LICENSE — text of Apache-2.0 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 environment file is committed
adequatevendor/github.com/libregraph/lico/identifier/.env is tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| vendor/github.com/libregraph/lico/identifier/.env | vendor/github.com/libregraph/lico/identifier/.env — committed environment file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
33 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate33 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.
| services/antivirus/pkg/command/health.go | services/antivirus/pkg/command/health.go:33 — outbound call without a timeout |
| services/app-provider/pkg/command/health.go | services/app-provider/pkg/command/health.go:26 — outbound call without a timeout |
| services/app-registry/pkg/command/health.go | services/app-registry/pkg/command/health.go:26 — 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.
15 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 5 high or critical
adequate15 of 1,923 locked dependencies match 22 published advisories in OSV, 5 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: they are development dependencies. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| web/pnpm-lock.yaml | web/pnpm-lock.yaml — @simple-git/argv-parser 2.0.0: GHSA-v5rq-49vh-5v5c (critical), fixed in 2.0.1; a development dependency |
| go.mod | go.mod — github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v3 v3.0.5: GHSA-mgcc-cww5-fp2q (high) |
| web/pnpm-lock.yaml | web/pnpm-lock.yaml — follow-redirects 1.16.0: GHSA-8r9p-f939-6h3c (high), fixed in 1.16.1; 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.
6 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate6 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.
| services/idp/assets/identifier/static/js/327.d3a97703.js | services/idp/assets/identifier/static/js/327.d3a97703.js:2 — HTML from a variable |
| services/idp/assets/identifier/static/js/89.cc7be865.js | services/idp/assets/identifier/static/js/89.cc7be865.js:2 — HTML from a variable |
| web/packages/web-app-files/src/components/SideBar/ActivitiesPanel.vue | web/packages/web-app-files/src/components/SideBar/ActivitiesPanel.vue:9 — 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.
Observability & Operations
06 · strong · ratings ↑An error reporter is installed but never initialised
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.
1 of 6 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate1 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.
| web/docker-compose.yml | web/docker-compose.yml:344 — 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
10 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured The tree carries design documentation (vendor/go.opentelemetry.io/otel/log/DESIGN.md). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- 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 144 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 843 commits landed in the last year, against 1,441 the year before (-41%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three.
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 05.1 and 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- measured A threat model is in the tree (vendor/github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4/threat_model.md). Does it name the assets this code actually handles, and is it current against the deployment?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Go codebase, with TypeScript alongside (38% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in vendor/, services/, web/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 65% of lines added in the last 12 months (13% of added lines) came through AI-declared commits. Does your organisation have a policy on inheriting and maintaining that code, and does your engineering team's tooling match how it was produced?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 17 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/owncloud/ocis/9469149)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 — 85 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 85 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 — 66
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 36,608 · top5 share 0.041 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 469 · per kloc 0.73 · lines read 646,447 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.653 · early test per code 0.686 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.338 · early delete per insert 0.753 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 480 · share 0.467 · with tests 224 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.004 · code files 11,087 · compat files 41 |
| 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 99 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 28 |
| 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 87 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 4 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 39 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 133 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 7.2 · window last 24 months · authors 144 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 144 · active 12mo 38 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 144 · one off share 0.167 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 144 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than a year ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 62 |
| 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 15 · joined 11 · regular last year 27 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,213 · source 3,312 · test ratio 0.366 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 209 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 17,540 · low content share 0.031 |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 76 · with tests 4 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 3 · test files 1,583 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 76 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 7 · recent commits 2,287 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 6 · commits since 0 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 9 · ci configs 76 · product files 11,087 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.053 · merges 794 · long lived 42 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.012 · commits 2,040 · over 2000 lines 24 |
| 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 1 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0168 · product files 2,099 · distinct blocks 130,581 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 652,310 · files 11 · per kloc 0.06 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 4 |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 90 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 2 |
| 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.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.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 10,867 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 16 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 16 · stated in headers or notices 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.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 327 · added in two years 196 · removed within 60 days 3 |
| 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 7 · commits last 90 days 294 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 19
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.merge_discipline | not observable from this history: it mirrors a Mercurial repository, where review happens outside git |
| 02.ci_presence | not observable from this history: it mirrors a Mercurial repository, whose process runs outside git |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | not observable from this history: it mirrors a Mercurial repository, whose process runs outside git |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Go, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV Go github.com/owncloud/ocis/v2 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/babel-preset (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/design-system (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/eslint-config (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/extension-sdk (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/prettier-config (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/tsconfig (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/web-client (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/web-pkg (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/web-test-helpers (an empty record for a package published here) did not |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; OSV Go github.com/owncloud/ocis/v2 (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/babel-preset (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/design-system (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/eslint-config (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/extension-sdk (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/prettier-config (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/tsconfig (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/web-client (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/web-pkg (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @ownclouders/web-test-helpers (an empty record for a package published here) did not answer |
| 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 E01S-33TC-DXFN 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/E01S33TCDXFN?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: 818.3authenticated: False |
| 133.1s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 175.2s | read the git history | commits: 23084tracked files: 19968 |
| 475.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 475.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 653.1s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 653.1s | deleting the working copy |
Total 653.1s ·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).