257761d · 50,000 commits · 5,583 files
Issued 2026-10-03
Reads strong: 4 of 5 rated dimensions are strong, 1 is adequate and none is significant.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Organization & Key-Person Risk is adequate. 4 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 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 | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 2% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑osu.Game/OsuGame.cs is 1,843 lines, 24× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 74 lines. 9 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 1,843. 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 | osu.Game/OsuGame.cs:1 — 1,843 lines (24× median) |
| line-count | osu.Game/Screens/Edit/Editor.cs:1 — 1,689 lines (22× median) |
| line-count | osu.Game/Database/RealmAccess.cs:1 — 1,533 lines (20× median) |
| line-count | osu.Game/Screens/Play/Player.cs:1 — 1,322 lines (17× median) |
| line-count | osu.Game/Screens/Select/SongSelect.cs:1 — 1,296 lines (17× 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 69 to 32 in a year
adequate47 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 17 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.
| regular contributors by year | 69 then 32; 47 stopped committing, 17 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 ↑No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · strong · ratings ↑The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate4 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. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/ci.yml | .github/workflows/ci.yml:53 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/ci.yml | .github/workflows/ci.yml:132 — action pinned by tag |
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 locked dependency has published vulnerabilities, 1 high or critical
adequate1 of 32 locked dependencies match 1 published advisories in OSV, 1 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: the project marks 1 as not affecting it, with its reason beside the reference.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| osu.Game/osu.Game.csproj | osu.Game/osu.Game.csproj — AutoMapper 13.0.1: GHSA-rvv3-g6hj-g44x (high), fixed in 16.1.1; the project marks it as not affecting it, which is a question to ask |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
2 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 3,841 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 503 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- measured .idea/ (less than a quarter of the files) has not changed in 18 months while the rest of the repository moved. Is that code finished, or abandoned, and who still knows how it works?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured 1,458 commits landed in the last year, against 4,168 the year before (-65%). 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- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverageNot rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a C# codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run C# in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in osu.Game/, osu.Game.Rulesets.Osu/, osu.Game.Rulesets.Taiko/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/ppy/osu/257761d)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 — 100 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 100 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 — 57
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few files, in the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026)files 9,347 · top5 share 0.034 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 162 · per kloc 0.27 · lines read 606,214 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) · late test per code 0.384 · early test per code 0.369 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) · late delete per insert 0.544 · early delete per insert 0.612 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,460 · share 0.259 · with tests 378 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.025 · code files 3,678 · compat files 91 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 5,077 |
| 06.structured_logging | not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthswindow last 24 months · authors 503 · top share a quarter or more |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 186 |
| 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 1,846 · window last 24 months · with tracked 331 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 6 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,185 · source 4,863 · test ratio 0.244 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026)sampled 36,664 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) · low content share 0.015 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 6 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 1,720 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 6 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.004 · reverts 25 · recent commits 5,630 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.042 · merges 1,463 · long lived 62 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.002 · commits 5,244 · over 2000 lines 8 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition threshold, in the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026)gap seconds 180 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) · min add ratio 3.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) · length stdev 20.34 · repeat share 0.094 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0145 · product files 3,678 · distinct blocks 243,739 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 611,156 · files 14 · per kloc 0.02 |
| 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 5,077 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 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.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | plain HTTP is not allowed app-widesites 0 |
| 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 4 · files with deprecations 19 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 1 · added in two years 0 · removed within 60 days 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 2.0 · days since last tag -1 · commits last 90 days 203 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyed, in the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026)elsewhere 40 · on branch 346 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 43
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.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) were read |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | no lockfile to date |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Mar 2020 to 30 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.dependency_pinning | no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was added outside test and fixture paths in the 20,000 most recent commits scanned; older history was not read |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 2 records name osu with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2006-4907, CVE-2006-4908) |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; NVD: 2 records name osu with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2006-4907, CVE-2006-4908) |
| 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 8YYR-S4XT-67ZV 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/8YYRS4XT67ZV?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-03 · shown | borehole 0.7.11 | 6 | strong |
5 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 6 | 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 |
| 18.9s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 32.0s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 5583 |
| 254.2s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 254.2s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 430.4s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 430.4s | deleting the working copy |
Total 430.4s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).