429796d · 8,925 commits · 508 files
Issued 2026-10-02
Reads strong: 4 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Observability & Operations and Organization & Key-Person Risk are adequate. 7 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 2 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 | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | strong | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 5% 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
- deep scan blamed 499 of 499 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑lib/phoenix/controller.ex is 2,011 lines, 15× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 130 lines. 5 files exceed 1,300 lines, the largest being 2,011. 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 | lib/phoenix/controller.ex:1 — 2,011 lines (15× median) |
| line-count | priv/static/phoenix.js:1 — 1,725 lines (13× median) |
| line-count | priv/static/phoenix.cjs.js:1 — 1,724 lines (13× median) |
| line-count | priv/static/phoenix.mjs:1 — 1,702 lines (13× median) |
| line-count | lib/phoenix/router.ex:1 — 1,521 lines (11× 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 ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Regular contributors fell from 19 to 11 in a year
adequate8 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 6 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.
| regular contributors by year | 19 then 11; 8 stopped committing, 6 began |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v1.8.15, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v1.8.8. 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.
| bd1801833 | tag v1.8.15 |
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 · strong · ratings ↑3 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities
adequate3 of 41 locked dependencies match 11 published advisories in OSV. 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| mix.lock | mix.lock — bandit 1.12.4: EEF-CVE-2026-74836 (unrated), fixed in 1.12.5 |
| mix.lock | mix.lock — cowlib 2.19.0: EEF-CVE-2026-43966 (unrated) |
| mix.lock | mix.lock — mint 1.9.3: EEF-CVE-2026-82672 (unrated), fixed in 1.10.1 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
5 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-08-10. 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 2 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 1.8.8. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. EEF-CVE-2026-56812 (moderate), GHSA-6983-jfq8-485w (high) affect 1.8.8, the newest release in this history, and not the surveyed commit: their fixes are in the surveyed commit, and whether a release cut elsewhere carries them could not be told. Answer lives in: the version you run. The record is incomplete: NVD: 42 records name phoenix with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2006-5090, CVE-2008-2533, CVE-2008-2534, …).
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-2026-64941 | 2026-08-10: CVE-2026-64941 (low): URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect') vulnerability in phoenixframework phoenix_live_view allows an attacker to send a victim's browser to an orig |
| CVE-2026-58228 | 2026-07-13: CVE-2026-58228 (moderate): Cross-site scripting vulnerability in phoenixframework phoenix_live_view allows an attacker to bypass URL scheme validation and execute JavaScript in a victim's |
| EEF-CVE-2026-56812 | 2026-07-07: EEF-CVE-2026-56812 (moderate), fixed in 1.8.9: Phoenix JavaScript presence client crashes on presence keys colliding with Object.prototype members in Presence.syncState/syncDiff |
| GHSA-6983-jfq8-485w | 2026-07-07: GHSA-6983-jfq8-485w (high), fixed in 1.8.9: Unbounded channel joins per transport enables DoS over few connections |
| GHSA-628h-q48j-jr6q | 2026-05-05: GHSA-628h-q48j-jr6q (high), fixed in 1.7.22: Long-poll NDJSON body splitting causes large memory allocation in Phoenix |
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 ↑One request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.
| request ids | no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
3 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 330 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 1,411 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 240 commits landed in the last year, against 404 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 No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured 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 Elixir codebase, with JavaScript alongside (16% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Elixir in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in lib/, assets/, priv/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (priv/templates/phx.gen.release/Dockerfile.eex). 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/phoenixframework/phoenix/429796d)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 — 97 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 97 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 2,424 · top5 share 0.082 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 41 · per kloc 0.53 · lines read 77,156 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.711 · early test per code 0.427 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.532 · early delete per insert 0.791 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 108 · share 0.259 · with tests 28 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 107 · compat files 0 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 2 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 2 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 19 · release commits 9 · changelog commits 19 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 12.7 · window last 24 months · authors 1,411 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 1,411 · active 12mo 79 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 1,411 · directories 6 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 1,411 · one off share 0.633 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 1,411 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than six months ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 178 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 58 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 5 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 127 · source 232 · test ratio 0.547 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 177 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 7,660 · low content share 0.031 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 5 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 3 · test files 169 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 5 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 2 · recent commits 644 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 9 · days since lockfile changed 13 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 1 · ci configs 5 · product files 107 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.012 · commits 584 · over 2000 lines 7 |
| 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 276 · share of insertions 0.0007 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 19.36 · repeat share 0.091 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 227 · write once share 0.189 |
| 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 316 |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 37 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 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_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 3 · files with deprecations 3 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 31 · added in two years 2 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 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 6.0 · days since last tag 1 · commits last 90 days 98 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 35
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Elixir: its logging setup is not read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for Elixir: its logger calls are not read |
| 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.environment_branching | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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.swallowed_errors | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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 to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 42 records name phoenix with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2006-5090, CVE-2008-2533, CVE-2008-2534, …); 2 affect 1.8.8, the newest release in this history, and not the surveyed commit, which has the fix |
| 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 KZKP-P58H-FYRN 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/KZKPP58HFYRN?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-02 · shown | borehole 0.7.10 | 9 | strong |
7 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 9 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 9 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 9 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 9 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 9 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 9 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.5 | 9 | 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 | authenticated: False |
| 4.7s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 9.0s | read the git history | commits: 8925tracked files: 508 |
| 68.8s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 68.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 81.3s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 81.3s | deleting the working copy |
Total 81.3s ·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).