62c78e5 · 5,551 commits · 11,790 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 12 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions AGENTS.md:246
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 05.26 36 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 27 high or critical in what ships
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| 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 |
- 75% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- 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 ↑server/src/routes/issues.ts is 19,733 lines, 191× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 103 lines. 233 files exceed 1,030 lines, the largest being 19,733. 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 90% 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 | server/src/routes/issues.ts:1 — 19,733 lines (191× median) |
| line-count | server/src/services/native-runtime/native-session-executor.ts:1 — 13,919 lines (135× median) |
| line-count | server/src/services/issues.ts:1 — 13,796 lines (133× median) |
| line-count | server/src/routes/openapi.ts:1 — 12,727 lines (123× median) |
| line-count | server/src/services/tool-gateway.ts:1 — 11,612 lines (112× 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 ↑10% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate426 of 4468 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 | 426 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 (packages/paperclip-runner/src/drivers/codex/codex-question-adapter.test.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.
| packages/paperclip-runner/src/drivers/codex/codex-question-adapter.test.ts | packages/paperclip-runner/src/drivers/codex/codex-question-adapter.test.ts:207 — 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 ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 4,880 non-merge commits among 234 authors; across all history, more than half of 4,880. This is the single most expensive thing to discover after closing, and the repository cannot tell you whether that person is part of the transaction.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 4,880 commits; bus factor 1; 234 authors |
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, v2026.1012.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v2026.1005.0. 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.
| bba6a45f0 | tag v2026.1012.0 |
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.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑3 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 | Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/openclaw-smoke/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/cloudflare/bridge-template/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.
36 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 27 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first36 of 1,978 locked dependencies match 95 published advisories in OSV, 34 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening pnpm-lock.yaml and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — dompurify 3.4.16: GHSA-cg2g-xh64-v4q7 (critical), fixed in 3.4.17 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — proxy-addr 2.0.7: GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h (critical), fixed in 2.0.8 |
| packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/pnpm-lock.yaml | packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/pnpm-lock.yaml — shell-quote 1.10.0: GHSA-pqg4-j6r4-53mv (critical), fixed in 1.11.0 |
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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate8 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/agent-runtime-images.yml | .github/workflows/agent-runtime-images.yml:33 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/agent-runtime-images.yml | .github/workflows/agent-runtime-images.yml:36 — action pinned by tag |
| scripts/install.sh | scripts/install.sh:40 — 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.
21 SQL statements built from strings
adequate21 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/src/wiki/core.ts | packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/src/wiki/core.ts:1334 — SQL built from a string |
| packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/src/wiki/core.ts | packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/src/wiki/core.ts:1422 — SQL built from a string |
| packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/src/wiki/core.ts | packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/src/wiki/core.ts:1474 — 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.
1 vendored component with no licence
adequateThird-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| server/src/vendor/paperclip-runner | server/src/vendor/paperclip-runner — 3 tracked files, no licence file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
13 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 10 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-08-21. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 4 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 2026.1005.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-265w-rf2w-cjh4 (high), GHSA-3xx2-mqjm-hg9x (critical), GHSA-47wq-cj9q-wpmp (critical) and 6 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. The record is incomplete: NVD: 2 records name paperclip with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2015-2963, CVE-2017-0889).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| CVE-2026-77087 | 2026-08-21: CVE-2026-77087 (critical): Paperclip before 0.3.1 in default local_trusted mode fails to validate Host headers, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary commands via DNS rebinding. An atta |
| GHSA-x8hx-rhr2-9rf7 | 2026-07-22: GHSA-x8hx-rhr2-9rf7 (critical): Drive-by RCE Against Local Paperclip Instances via DNS Rebinding |
| GHSA-gqqj-85qm-8qhf | 2026-04-16: GHSA-gqqj-85qm-8qhf (high): Paperclip: codex_local inherited ChatGPT/OpenAI-connected Gmail and was able to send real email |
| GHSA-265w-rf2w-cjh4 | 2026-04-16: GHSA-265w-rf2w-cjh4 (high), fixed in 2026.416.0: Paperclip: Privilege Escalation via Agent-Controlled workspaceStrategy.provisionCommand Leading to OS Command Execution |
| GHSA-3xx2-mqjm-hg9x | 2026-04-16: GHSA-3xx2-mqjm-hg9x (critical), fixed in 2026.416.0: Paperclip: Cross-tenant agent API key IDOR in `/agents/:id/keys` routes allows full victim-company compromise |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑Sends usage data to telemetry.paperclip.ing by default
adequatepackages/shared/src/telemetry/client.ts sends to telemetry.paperclip.ing, and packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.ts leaves reporting on as shipped. Every installation reports to the vendor unless its operator turns this off. For a buyer running it inside their own product, that is an outbound data flow to a third party: ask what is sent, how often, and whether the buyer's customers were told.
| packages/shared/src/telemetry/client.ts | packages/shared/src/telemetry/client.ts:15 — reports to telemetry.paperclip.ing |
| packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.ts | packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.ts:69 — the reporting setting is on by default |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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
5 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 (DESIGN.md and 12 more). 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 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?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured A roadmap file is in the tree (ROADMAP.md, last changed September 2026). A file is not a plan. Does it match the roadmap in the data room, and has the team delivered the last one it wrote?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured A threat model is in the tree (doc/connections/SECURITY-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 TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in server/, packages/, ui/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 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/paperclipai/paperclip/62c78e5)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 — 91 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 91 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 — 63
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 13,071 · top5 share 0.031 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 37 · per kloc 0.02 · lines read 1,900,461 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,989 · share 0.74 · with tests 1,471 |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 42 · columns added last year 896 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.002 · code files 4,822 · compat files 9 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 112 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 2 |
| 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 319 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 2 · config files 1 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 7 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 2,030 · release commits 5 · changelog commits 95 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 234 · one off share 0.671 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 234 · 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 234 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 376 · window last 24 months · with tracked 148 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 23 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 4,178 · source 8,964 · test ratio 0.466 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 2,030 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 5,175 · low content share 0.002 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 23 · with tests 11 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 1 · test files 4,446 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 23 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 12 · recent commits 4,880 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 111 · days since lockfile changed 3 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 42 · ci configs 23 · product files 4,822 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.0 · merges 297 · long lived 0 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 3,973 · share of insertions 0.001 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 17.04 · repeat share 0.015 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 5,837 · write once share 0.523 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0223 · product files 4,813 · distinct blocks 1,070,905 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,907,436 · files 21 · per kloc 0.02 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 20 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 7,096 |
| 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.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 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.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0 |
| 05.unsafe_html | raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 3 |
| 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 4 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.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 0 · commits last 90 days 2,304 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 28
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | history too short to compare code and test growth |
| 04.churn_trend | history too short to read a churn trend |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest 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.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | history too short to distinguish active from historical contributors |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | too little history |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | the history scanned covers 4 months, less than the 12 this question needs |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | the history scanned covers 4 months, less than the 18 this question needs |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | the history scanned covers 4 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.dependency_churn | the history scanned covers 4 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | the history scanned covers 4 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm @paperclipai/adapter-utils (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/db (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/mcp-server (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/skills-catalog (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/teams-catalog (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/adapter-cursor-cloud (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/adapter-cursor-local (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/adapter-gemini-local (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/adapter-grok-local (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/adapter-kimi-local (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/adapter-openclaw-gateway (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/adapter-opencode-local (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/adapter-pi-local (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/create-paperclip-plugin (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 2 records name paperclip with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2015-2963, CVE-2017-0889); 9 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 CPMG-54CV-CFGS 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/CPMG54CVCFGS?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: 390.1authenticated: False |
| 57.9s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 90.5s | read the git history | commits: 5551tracked files: 11790 |
| 661.7s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 661.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 1094.5s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 1094.5s | deleting the working copy |
Total 1094.5s ·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).