4f52bc6 · 22,112 commits · 5,411 files
Issued 2026-10-03
Reads strong: 4 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Observability & Operations are adequate. 1 finding is worth checking first. 11 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/pull_request_template.md:8
- 1 submodule(s) this survey does not read: compat-tests .gitmodules:1
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 15 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 6 high or critical in what ships
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 4 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 | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 26% 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 ↑ui-v2/src/api/prefect.ts is 19,339 lines, 207× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 93 lines. 65 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 19,339. 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 91% 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 | ui-v2/src/api/prefect.ts:1 — 19,339 lines (207× median) |
| line-count | src/integrations/prefect-databricks/prefect_databricks/models/jobs.py:1 — 4,428 lines (47× median) |
| line-count | src/prefect/flows.py:1 — 3,699 lines (39× median) |
| line-count | src/integrations/prefect-github/prefect_github/repository.py:1 — 3,446 lines (37× median) |
| line-count | src/prefect/server/schemas/filters.py:1 — 2,566 lines (27× 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 (.github/workflows/integration-package-tests.yaml). 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.
| .github/workflows/integration-package-tests.yaml | .github/workflows/integration-package-tests.yaml:127 — 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 · strong · ratings ↑11 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate11 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Jun 2022. 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.
| src/prefect/task_runners.py | src/prefect/task_runners.py — deprecated since Jun 2022 |
| src/prefect/docker/__init__.py | src/prefect/docker/__init__.py — deprecated since Jun 2022 |
| src/prefect/logging/configuration.py | src/prefect/logging/configuration.py — deprecated since Nov 2022 |
| src/prefect/utilities/annotations.py | src/prefect/utilities/annotations.py — deprecated since Jan 2023 |
| src/prefect/_internal/compatibility/deprecated.py | src/prefect/_internal/compatibility/deprecated.py — deprecated since Feb 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.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑4 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. 2 other matchs set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
| private key block | 4 cited: private key block, 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.
5 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 | client/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | src/integrations/prefect-aws/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | src/integrations/prefect-azure/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.
15 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 6 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first15 of 1,087 locked dependencies match 59 published advisories in OSV, 21 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.
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 uv.lock and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| uv.lock | uv.lock — pyjwt 2.13.0: GHSA-ffc3-869f-jxw9 (critical), fixed in 2.14.0; an optional extra |
| uv.lock | uv.lock — urllib3 2.7.0: GHSA-8988-9cw3-xx77 (high), fixed in 2.8.0 |
| ui-v2/package-lock.json | ui-v2/package-lock.json — lodash-es 4.17.23: GHSA-r5fr-rjxr-66jc (high), fixed in 4.18.0 |
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
adequateui-v2/.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.
| ui-v2/.env | ui-v2/.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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate16 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/benchmarks.yaml | .github/workflows/benchmarks.yaml:41 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/benchmarks.yaml | .github/workflows/benchmarks.yaml:110 — 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.
8 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 4 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-08-11. 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 1 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 3.8.7. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 2 records name prefect with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-3515, CVE-2026-5366).
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-2026-72538 | 2026-08-11: CVE-2026-72538 (high): An argument injection vulnerability in PrefectHQ Prefect through 3.8.2 allows authenticated users to achieve remote code execution via the git_clone pull step b |
| GHSA-c635-393c-hcx2 | 2026-06-02: GHSA-c635-393c-hcx2 (high), fixed in 3.6.22.dev7: Prefect has an Authentication Middleware Bypass when URL paths are appended with 'health' or 'ready' |
| GHSA-cw25-2p92-7f75 | 2026-05-26: GHSA-cw25-2p92-7f75 (high): Prefect has an Argument Injection issue |
| GHSA-6rcx-55r6-jx65 | 2026-05-04: GHSA-6rcx-55r6-jx65 (low), fixed in 3.6.25.dev7: Prefect Git Argument Injection in GitRepository Pull Steps |
| GHSA-6rr6-v7cj-mxpg | 2026-05-04: GHSA-6rr6-v7cj-mxpg (moderate), fixed in 3.6.22: Prefect Auth Bypass via endswith() Health Check Exemption |
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 ↑No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| logging-scan | searched 4,005 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
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
8 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 2,473 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- 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 462 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 851 commits landed in the last year, against 1,665 the year before (-49%). 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 Alert rules are defined in the repository. Who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- measured Service-level objectives are defined in the tree (ui/src/maps/.eslintrc.json). Are they met? The repository holds the target, not the measurement.
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- 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 Python codebase, with TypeScript alongside (49% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in src/, ui/, ui-v2/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 80% of lines added in the last 12 months (20% 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 6 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/prefecthq/prefect/4f52bc6)If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
Rejection log — 92 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 92 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 76
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 12,802 · top5 share 0.032 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 158 · per kloc 0.17 · lines read 942,497 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.775 · early test per code 0.71 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.394 · early delete per insert 0.56 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 541 · share 0.588 · with tests 318 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.005 · code files 2,134 · compat files 11 |
| 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 53 |
| 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 10 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 1 · settings off 1 |
| 06.alert_rules | alert rules are defined as codealert files 2 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 3 · floating 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 1 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 427 · release commits 2 · changelog commits 4 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 5.2 · window last 24 months · authors 462 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 462 · active 12mo 134 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 462 · one off share 0.602 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 462 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than two years ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 230 |
| 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 19 · joined 19 · regular last year 33 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 12 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 44 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,485 · source 3,616 · test ratio 0.411 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 1,297 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 18,420 · low content share 0.026 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 44 · with tests 10 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 47 · test files 1,539 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 44 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 4 · recent commits 2,515 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 25 · days since lockfile changed 5 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 25 · ci configs 44 · product files 2,134 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.024 · commits 2,338 · over 2000 lines 55 |
| 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 130 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.5 · repeat share 0.075 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,209 · write once share 0.325 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0274 · product files 2,130 · distinct blocks 265,719 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 946,356 · files 93 · per kloc 0.18 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 12 |
| 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.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 0 |
| 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 1 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.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 2 |
| 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_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 333 · added in two years 178 · removed within 60 days 6 |
| 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 -5 · commits last 90 days 406 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 64 · on branch 275 · tags in window 339 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 16
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, stay |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 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.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.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV PyPI prefect-client (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-aws (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-azure (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-bitbucket (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-dask (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-databricks (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-dbt (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-docker (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-email (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-gcp (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-github (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-gitlab (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-kubernetes (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-ray (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-redis (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-shell (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-slack (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-snowflake (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI prefect-sqlalchemy (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 2 records name prefect with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2026-3515, CVE-2026-5366) |
| 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 98R6-54DZ-CTC9 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/98R654DZCTC9?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 | 14 | strong |
9 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 14 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 14 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 14 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 14 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 13 | 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 |
| 31.8s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 55.7s | read the git history | commits: 22112tracked files: 5411 |
| 330.5s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 330.5s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 527.3s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 527.3s | deleting the working copy |
Total 527.3s ·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).