f543fb4 · 8,521 commits · 11,098 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Significant: one contributor carries the recent work.
1 of 6 assessable dimensions carries significant findings, 2 are adequate and 3 are strong. 1 finding is worth checking first. 9 findings, each with its evidence: the commit, path and lines it rests on, or, when something is missing, what was looked for. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 03.1 Significant: Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions CONTRIBUTING.md:120
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 33 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 21 high or critical in what ships
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | significant findings | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 34% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- 23% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers
- 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 ↑packages/3-extensions/sql-orm-client/src/collection.ts is 3,102 lines, 38× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 81 lines. 42 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,102. 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 | packages/3-extensions/sql-orm-client/src/collection.ts:1 — 3,102 lines (38× median) |
| line-count | packages/2-sql-family/2-authoring/contract-psl/src/interpreter.ts:1 — 2,855 lines (35× median) |
| line-count | packages/2-sql-family/2-authoring/contract-ts/src/contract-dsl.ts:1 — 2,789 lines (34× median) |
| line-count | packages/3-targets/postgres/1-target/src/core/migrations/op-factory-call.ts:1 — 2,741 lines (33× median) |
| line-count | packages/3-extensions/sql-orm-client/src/types.ts:1 — 2,440 lines (30× 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 (packages/3-targets/sqlite/2-adapter/test/migrations/create-table-call-lowering.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/3-targets/sqlite/2-adapter/test/migrations/create-table-call-lowering.test.ts | packages/3-targets/sqlite/2-adapter/test/migrations/create-table-call-lowering.test.ts:270 — 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 · significant findings · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
significant findingsIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored three-quarters or more of 8,284 non-merge commits among 31 authors; across all history, three-quarters or more of 8,284. 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 three-quarters or more of 8,284 commits; bus factor 1; 31 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, 7.10.1, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v0.17.0. 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.
| 97ea35925 | tag 7.10.1 |
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.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑33 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 21 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first33 of 1,106 locked dependencies match 157 published advisories in OSV, 49 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 pnpm-lock.yaml settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — dompurify 3.4.8: GHSA-cg2g-xh64-v4q7 (critical), fixed in 3.4.17 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — next 16.3.0: GHSA-2464-fhr4-w9xw (critical), fixed in 16.4.1 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — proxy-addr 2.0.7: GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h (critical), fixed in 2.0.8 |
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.
9 SQL statements built from strings
adequate9 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 2 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. 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/3-targets/mysql/1-target/src/core/marker-lock.ts | packages/3-targets/mysql/1-target/src/core/marker-lock.ts:22 — SQL built from a string |
| packages/3-targets/mysql/1-target/src/core/marker-lock.ts | packages/3-targets/mysql/1-target/src/core/marker-lock.ts:40 — SQL built from a string |
| packages/3-targets/postgres/3-driver/src/session-settings.ts | packages/3-targets/postgres/3-driver/src/session-settings.ts:111 — 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.
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 10,130 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.
The service logs with print: 104 calls against 14 logger calls
adequate104 `print` or `console.log` calls in the service's code, and 14 calls through a logger. Printed lines carry no level and no context, cannot be switched off, and are hard to find again in production.
| apps/lsp-playground/src/bridge.ts | apps/lsp-playground/src/bridge.ts:83 — print used for logging |
| apps/lsp-playground/src/cli.ts | apps/lsp-playground/src/cli.ts:61 — print used for logging |
| apps/lsp-playground/src/cli.ts | apps/lsp-playground/src/cli.ts:62 — print used for logging |
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
4 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 (ARCHITECTURE.md and 228 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 three-quarters or more 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- 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?
- measured 2 postmortem or incident write-ups in the tree (drive/retro/README.md). Walk through the most recent one: what broke, how it was found, and what changed afterwards.
- 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 packages/, projects/, skills/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker-compose.yaml). 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/prisma/orm/f543fb4)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 — 96 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 96 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 66
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 26,821 · top5 share 0.007 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 19 · per kloc 0.01 · lines read 1,651,563 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.39 · early test per code 1.508 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.506 · early delete per insert 0.571 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,620 · share 0.665 · with tests 1,078 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 1,942 · compat files 0 |
| 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 9 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 3 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 5 · settings off 1 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 852 · release commits 3 · changelog commits 32 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 31 · active 12mo 31 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 31 · directories 9 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | a healthy share of contributors committed more than onceshare 0.29 · authors 31 · one commit authors 9 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 31 · top share three-quarters or more · top contributor last committed between three and six months ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 31 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 187 · window last 24 months · with tracked 16 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 20 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 4,213 · source 6,146 · test ratio 0.685 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 1,083 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 8,334 · low content share 0.013 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 20 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 23 · test files 6,108 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 20 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 5 · recent commits 8,284 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 0 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 111 · ci configs 20 · product files 1,942 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.0 · merges 121 · long lived 0 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.049 · commits 7,377 · over 2000 lines 362 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 5,292 · share of insertions 0.0016 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.29 · repeat share 0.039 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,474 · write once share 0.381 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0138 · product files 1,923 · distinct blocks 166,095 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,661,335 · files 1 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 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 10,130 |
| 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_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 3,057,219 |
| 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 47 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 2 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 139 · irreversible 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.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.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 520 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 30
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 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.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 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 TypeScript, 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 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | the history scanned covers 11 months, less than the 12 this question needs |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | the history scanned covers 11 months, less than the 18 this question needs |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | the history scanned covers 11 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.dependency_churn | the history scanned covers 11 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | the history scanned covers 11 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV npm @prisma/orm-extension-arktype-json (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-extension-middleware-cache (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-extension-paradedb (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-extension-pgvector (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-extension-postgis (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-extension-supabase (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-family-mongo (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-family-sql (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-framework (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-mongo (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-postgres (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-sqlite (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-target-mongo (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-target-postgres (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-target-sqlite (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-toolchain (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 19 records name orm with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2019-14900, CVE-2020-11010, CVE-2025-22151, …) |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; OSV npm @prisma/orm-extension-arktype-json (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-extension-middleware-cache (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-extension-paradedb (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-extension-pgvector (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-extension-postgis (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-extension-supabase (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-family-mongo (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-family-sql (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-framework (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-mongo (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-postgres (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-sqlite (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-target-mongo (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-target-postgres (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-target-sqlite (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prisma/orm-toolchain (an empty record for a package published here) did not answer; NVD: 19 records name orm with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2019-14900, CVE-2020-11010, CVE-2025-22151, …) |
| 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 3C6Q-1PW7-JRHC 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/3C6Q1PW7JRHC?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: 281.9authenticated: False |
| 179.5s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 196.1s | read the git history | commits: 8521tracked files: 11098 |
| 618.5s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 618.6s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 919.4s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 919.4s | deleting the working copy |
Total 919.4s ·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).