1ecee8f · 40,916 commits · 5,622 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Product & Engineering Maturity.
102 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 2 findings are worth checking first. 16 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions AI_POLICY.md:3
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.
- 4 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 8% 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 · adequate · ratings ↑1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`
adequate1 of 20 `FROM` lines in product Dockerfiles name an image without a version, or with `latest`. Each build pulls whatever the registry serves that day, so the image that ships can change without a commit, and last month's build cannot be reproduced. Pin a version, or a digest.
| whisker/docker-image/Dockerfile | whisker/docker-image/Dockerfile:17 — base image without a version |
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.
felix/dataplane/linux/bpf_ep_mgr.go is 6,180 lines, 51× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 119 lines. 45 files exceed 1,190 lines, the largest being 6,180. 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 | felix/dataplane/linux/bpf_ep_mgr.go:1 — 6,180 lines (51× median) |
| line-count | libcalico-go/lib/apis/internalapi/generated.openapi.go:1 — 3,580 lines (30× median) |
| line-count | felix/dataplane/linux/int_dataplane.go:1 — 3,347 lines (28× median) |
| line-count | libcalico-go/lib/ipam/ipam.go:1 — 2,803 lines (23× median) |
| line-count | felix/bpf-gpl/tc.c:1 — 2,517 lines (21× 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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑139 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatego.mod declares 139 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.
| direct-dependencies | go.mod — 139 declared |
| direct-dependencies | whisker/package.json — 35 declared |
| direct-dependencies | api/go.mod — 10 declared |
| direct-dependencies | lib/httpmachinery/go.mod — 8 declared |
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.
Python 3.8 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Python 3.8 (end of life 2024-10-07). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2024-10-07. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| networking-calico/Dockerfile | networking-calico/Dockerfile — Python 3.8, end of life 2024-10-07 |
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.
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v3.33.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v3.18.5. 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.
| fbaa37111 | tag v3.33.0 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑7 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 | .oss-scanner/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | felix/docker-image/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | goldmane/docker/flowgen/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | networking-calico/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.
7 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 1 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first7 of 1,227 locked dependencies match 10 published advisories in OSV, 3 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening go.mod and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| go.mod | go.mod — go.etcd.io/etcd/client/pkg/v3 v3.7.0: GO-2026-6107 (high), fixed in 3.7.1 |
| go.mod | go.mod — github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4 v4.1.4: GHSA-mgcc-cww5-fp2q (high), fixed in 4.1.6 |
| whisker/yarn.lock | whisker/yarn.lock — source-map-js 1.2.1: GHSA-68fv-2mgg-jv7q (high), fixed in 1.2.2 |
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.
14 workload settings give a container the host
adequate worth checking first14 places in the deployment configuration run a container privileged or in the host's network, process or IPC namespace. A compromise of that container is a compromise of the machine, and most acquirers' security reviews block it. Node agents (network, storage, monitoring) are excluded.
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 charts/tigera-operator/templates/tigera-operator/00-uninstall.yaml:32 and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| charts/tigera-operator/templates/tigera-operator/00-uninstall.yaml | charts/tigera-operator/templates/tigera-operator/00-uninstall.yaml:32 — privileged or host namespace |
| charts/tigera-operator/templates/tigera-operator/02-tigera-operator.yaml | charts/tigera-operator/templates/tigera-operator/02-tigera-operator.yaml:49 — privileged or host namespace |
| goldmane/config/testserver-daemonset.yaml | goldmane/config/testserver-daemonset.yaml:15 — privileged or host namespace |
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.
2 environment files are committed
adequatewhisker/.env, whisker/.env.production are 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.
| whisker/.env | whisker/.env — committed environment file |
| whisker/.env.production | whisker/.env.production — 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.
4 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate4 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| cni-plugin/pkg/plugin/plugin.go | cni-plugin/pkg/plugin/plugin.go:124 — outbound call without a timeout |
| felix/k8sfv/metric.go | felix/k8sfv/metric.go:28 — outbound call without a timeout |
| goldmane/cmd/health/main.go | goldmane/cmd/health/main.go:38 — outbound call without a timeout |
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.
2 shell commands built from strings
adequate2 places run a command through a shell (`shell=True`, `os.system`, `exec` with a template) rather than passing arguments. Where any part comes from outside, it is command injection. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| networking-calico/networking_calico/agent/dhcp_agent.py | networking-calico/networking_calico/agent/dhcp_agent.py:211 — command run through a shell |
| networking-calico/networking_calico/agent/dhcp_agent.py | networking-calico/networking_calico/agent/dhcp_agent.py:212 — command run through a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
3 vendored components with no licence
adequateThird-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| third_party/envoy-gateway | third_party/envoy-gateway — 3 tracked files, no licence file |
| third_party/envoy-proxy | third_party/envoy-proxy — 2 tracked files, no licence file |
| third_party/envoy-ratelimit | third_party/envoy-ratelimit — 3 tracked files, no licence file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
6 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-07-30. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed commit. GHSA-9p7w-w5q6-mxj3 (moderate), GHSA-m67g-87rx-v42c (moderate) are fixed in the surveyed commit; which release carries them cannot be told from this history, which does not place the release users run. Answer lives in: the version you run. The record is incomplete: NVD: 1 record names calico with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2022-28224).
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-2026-41186 | 2026-07-30: CVE-2026-41186 (moderate): When Calico's shared debug server is enabled (disabled by default), the Calico kube-controllers and Goldmane components bind their Go pprof debug listener to 0. |
| CVE-2026-41187 | 2026-07-30: CVE-2026-41187 (moderate): Calico's apiserver wraps tier-scoped resources so that every operation runs through AuthorizeTierOperation, but the Delete override on NetworkPolicy, GlobalNetw |
| CVE-2026-6540 | 2026-07-30: CVE-2026-6540 (high): Calico's Application Layer Policy (disabled by default), which enforces HTTP rules through Dikastes, fails to perform URL path normalization. As a result, HTTP |
| GHSA-9p7w-w5q6-mxj3 | 2026-05-28: GHSA-9p7w-w5q6-mxj3 (moderate), fixed in 3.31.6: Calico Inserts Sensitive Information into Log File |
| GHSA-m67g-87rx-v42c | 2026-05-28: GHSA-m67g-87rx-v42c (moderate), fixed in 3.31.6: Calico Inserts Sensitive Information into Log 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.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑Sends usage data to usage.projectcalico.org by default
adequatefelix/usagerep/usagerep.go sends to usage.projectcalico.org, and felix/config/config_params.go leaves reporting on as shipped. Every installation reports to the vendor unless its operator turns this off. For a buyer running it inside their own product, that is an outbound data flow to a third party: ask what is sent, how often, and whether the buyer's customers were told.
| felix/usagerep/usagerep.go | felix/usagerep/usagerep.go:34 — reports to usage.projectcalico.org |
| felix/config/config_params.go | felix/config/config_params.go:462 — the reporting setting is on by default |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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.
7 of 17 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate7 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| charts/calico/values.yaml | charts/calico/values.yaml:7 — image without a version |
| charts/calico/values.yaml | charts/calico/values.yaml:10 — image without a version |
| charts/calico/values.yaml | charts/calico/values.yaml:13 — image without a version |
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
11 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured The tree carries design documentation (DESIGN.md and 13 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 765 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 3,398 commits landed in the last year, against 1,772 the year before (+92%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- 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 A threat model is in the tree (.oss-scanner/threat_model.md). Does it name the assets this code actually handles, and is it current against the deployment?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured Alert rules are defined in the repository. Who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Go codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in felix/, pkg/, manifests/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 32% of lines added in the last 12 months (8% 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 (.oss-scanner/Dockerfile and 77 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/projectcalico/calico/1ecee8f)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 — 86 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 86 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 — 73
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 42,872 · top5 share 0.044 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 563 · per kloc 0.48 · lines read 1,173,724 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.686 · early test per code 0.82 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.669 · early delete per insert 0.585 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 915 · share 0.511 · with tests 468 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 2,125 · compat files 1 |
| 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 11 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 864 |
| 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 5 |
| 06.alert_rules | alert rules are defined as codealert files 2 |
| 06.probes_identical | readiness and liveness are distinct, or not both setidentical 0 · workloads with both 17 |
| 06.single_replica | an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 15 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 58 · release commits 12 · changelog commits 55 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 13.1 · window last 24 months · authors 765 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 765 · active 12mo 101 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 765 · directories 31 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 765 · one off share 0.478 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 765 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 143 |
| 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 8 · joined 18 · regular last year 49 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 1,346 · window last 24 months · with tracked 35 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 21 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,507 · source 3,604 · test ratio 0.418 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 2,618 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 28,648 · low content share 0.025 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 2,443 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 21 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.005 · reverts 24 · recent commits 5,170 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 8 · commits since 32 · days since lockfile changed 5 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 10 · ci configs 21 · product files 2,125 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.065 · merges 938 · long lived 61 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.03 · commits 4,469 · over 2000 lines 134 |
| 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 191 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.96 · repeat share 0.205 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,575 · write once share 0.25 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0129 · product files 1,918 · distinct blocks 244,784 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,178,755 · files 7 · per kloc 0.01 |
| 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 5,256 |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 18 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 1 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.resource_limits | every workload declares limitsworkloads 24 · without limits 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 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_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.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 1 · files with deprecations 66 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 404 · added in two years 157 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 2.5 · days since last tag 7 · commits last 90 days 1,259 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 13
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Go, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_html | not assessed for Go, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 1 record names calico with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2022-28224); 4 are fixed in the surveyed commit, and the release users run is not placed by this history |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited list |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter YDXW-X5N3-DGY3 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/YDXWX5N3DGY3?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: 398.8authenticated: False |
| 58.9s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 117.2s | read the git history | commits: 40916tracked files: 5622 |
| 547.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 547.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 866.2s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 866.2s | deleting the working copy |
Total 866.2s ·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).