prometheus/prometheus
dff7878 · 18,736 commits · 1,691 files
Issued 2026-10-03
Reads strong: 4 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Product & Engineering Maturity are adequate. 1 finding is worth checking first. 7 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- names CNCF .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md:4
- names OpenSSF README.md:15
- names Cloud Native Computing Foundation README.md:21
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 38 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 6 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 | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 74% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- deep scan blamed 1,671 of 1,671 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑promql/engine.go is 5,021 lines, 32× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 153 lines. 17 files exceed 1,530 lines, the largest being 5,021. 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 | promql/engine.go:1 — 5,021 lines (32× median) |
| line-count | web/ui/mantine-ui/src/promql/functionDocs.tsx:1 — 4,241 lines (27× median) |
| line-count | tsdb/head.go:1 — 3,282 lines (21× median) |
| line-count | promql/functions.go:1 — 3,043 lines (19× median) |
| line-count | tsdb/db.go:1 — 2,924 lines (19× 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 ↑109 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatego.mod declares 109 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 — 109 declared |
| direct-dependencies | web/ui/mantine-ui/package.json — 39 declared |
| direct-dependencies | web/ui/react-app/package.json — 38 declared |
| direct-dependencies | web/ui/module/codemirror-promql/package.json — 2 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.
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v3.15.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v3.13.2. 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.
| 5241a27fe | tag v3.15.0 |
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 ↑38 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 6 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first38 of 2,023 locked dependencies match 90 published advisories in OSV, 55 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 web/ui/react-app/pnpm-lock.yaml settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| web/ui/react-app/pnpm-lock.yaml | web/ui/react-app/pnpm-lock.yaml — websocket-driver 0.7.4: GHSA-xv26-6w52-cph6 (critical), fixed in 0.7.5; a development dependency |
| web/ui/react-app/pnpm-lock.yaml | web/ui/react-app/pnpm-lock.yaml — braces 3.0.3: GHSA-vfj7-8cjw-p6xm (high) |
| web/ui/react-app/pnpm-lock.yaml | web/ui/react-app/pnpm-lock.yaml — immutable 5.1.5: GHSA-v56q-mh7h-f735 (high), fixed in 5.1.8 |
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.
1 environment file is committed
adequateweb/ui/react-app/.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.
| web/ui/react-app/.env | web/ui/react-app/.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.
7 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-26. 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 4 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 3.13.2. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 13 records name prometheus with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2002-1211, CVE-2024-12564, CVE-2024-34045, …).
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-2026-100525 | 2026-09-26: CVE-2026-100525 (moderate): The OpenClaw Prometheus diagnostics plugin (@openclaw/diagnostics-prometheus) before version 2026.9.3 does not enforce the operator.read scope on its authentica |
| CVE-2026-67990 | 2026-08-13: CVE-2026-67990 (moderate): basecamp/upright at commit efe4f2e5254ac6e57e45d2261804cca74dbbca3f disables Rails CSRF protection for its Alertmanager and Prometheus proxy controllers. An una |
| GO-2026-5264 | 2026-04-27: GO-2026-5264 (high), fixed in 0.305.2: Prometheus: Remote read endpoint allows denial of service via crafted snappy payload in github.com/prometheus/prometheus |
| GHSA-fw8g-cg8f-9j28 | 2026-04-27: GHSA-fw8g-cg8f-9j28 (moderate), fixed in 0.311.3: Prometheus vulnerable to stored XSS via crafted histogram bucket label values in the old web UI heatmap display |
| GHSA-wg65-39gg-5wfj | 2026-04-27: GHSA-wg65-39gg-5wfj (high), fixed in 0.311.3: Prometheus Azure AD remote write OAuth client secret exposed via config API |
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 · strong · ratings ↑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 No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 759 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 1,322 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 1,532 commits landed in the last year, against 1,085 the year before (+41%). 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 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?
- 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, with TypeScript alongside (30% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in web/, tsdb/, storage/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 1 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/prometheus/prometheus/dff7878)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 — 98 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 98 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 — 81
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 12,059 · top5 share 0.034 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 352 · per kloc 0.72 · lines read 487,119 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.104 · early test per code 0.479 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.493 · early delete per insert 0.8 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 595 · share 0.603 · with tests 359 |
| 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 643 · 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 84 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 120 |
| 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 8 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 1 |
| 06.alert_rules | alert rules are defined as codealert files 15 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 75 · release commits 7 · changelog commits 68 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 13.8 · window last 24 months · authors 1,322 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 1,322 · active 12mo 261 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 1,322 · directories 17 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 1,322 · one off share 0.57 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 1,322 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than three years ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 408 |
| 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 24 · joined 57 · regular last year 89 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 1,363 · window last 24 months · with tracked 105 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 15 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 356 · source 986 · test ratio 0.361 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 560 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 13,573 · low content share 0.014 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 15 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 768 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 15 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.005 · reverts 12 · recent commits 2,621 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 7 · commits since 0 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 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 6 · ci configs 15 · product files 643 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.112 · merges 1,157 · long lived 130 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.01 · commits 2,316 · over 2000 lines 23 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was a branch merged by a merge commit, developed on its own branch and landed in one piece (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays itlargest commits ae7b18a..40c27a1 · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 2,035 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 26 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 20.92 · repeat share 0.052 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 732 · write once share 0.178 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0134 · product files 632 · distinct blocks 119,493 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 488,660 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 1 |
| 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 1,560 |
| 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.container_runs_as_root | every shipped Dockerfile drops to a non-root user or builds on a non-root base imagedockerfiles 1 |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 65 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 1 |
| 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 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.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 6 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 1 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 1 · stated in headers or notices 1 |
| 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 134 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 358 · added in two years 158 · removed within 60 days 1 |
| 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 1.0 · days since last tag -2 · commits last 90 days 774 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 17
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.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 |
| 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.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; OSV npm @prometheus-io/codemirror-promql (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @prometheus-io/lezer-promql (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 13 records name prometheus with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2002-1211, CVE-2024-12564, CVE-2024-34045, …) |
| 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 XRFJ-X49F-7MBJ 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/XRFJX49F7MBJ)
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 0.7.12 | 8 | strong |
6 earlier (show)
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 8 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 8 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.5 | 8 | 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 |
| 33.8s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 64.1s | read the git history | commits: 18736tracked files: 1691 |
| 502.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 502.7s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 635.5s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 635.5s | deleting the working copy |
Total 635.5s ·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).