669df91 · 9,309 commits · 13,056 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
103 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
- 05.60 Relicensed: Apache-2.0 → CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 (2017-07-24) → Apache-2.0 (2021-11-12) LICENSE
- names Linux Foundation README.md:29
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions docs/AGENTS.md:111
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.
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 5 credential-shaped matches are withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 35% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑api/src/backend/api/v1/views.py is 8,978 lines, 179× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 50 lines. 37 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 8,978. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 88% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| line-count | api/src/backend/api/v1/views.py:1 — 8,978 lines (179× median) |
| line-count | api/src/backend/api/attack_paths/queries/aws.py:1 — 4,957 lines (99× median) |
| line-count | api/src/backend/api/v1/serializers.py:1 — 4,623 lines (92× median) |
| line-count | api/src/backend/api/attack_paths/queries/aws_deprecated.py:1 — 3,820 lines (76× median) |
| line-count | dashboard/common_methods.py:1 — 3,331 lines (66× 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 · adequate · ratings ↑6% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate207 of 3625 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| git log --numstat | 207 commits over 2,000 lines |
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 · adequate · ratings ↑The next contributor after the top one has not committed here for more than a year
adequateThe #2 contributor of the last three years (less than a quarter of the commits) has not committed here for more than a year, while the repository is still active. These are the people a buyer assumes would step up if the top contributor stopped. The history shows only that no commits of theirs landed here, not why.
| git shortlog -sn | the #2 contributor of the last three years (less than a quarter of the commits) has not committed here for more than a year |
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 · adequate · ratings ↑98 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatepyproject.toml declares 98 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 | pyproject.toml — 98 declared |
| direct-dependencies | ui/package.json — 83 declared |
| direct-dependencies | api/pyproject.toml — 41 declared |
| direct-dependencies | util/prowler-bulk-provisioning/requirements.txt — 3 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, 5.45.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is 5.1.0. 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.
| bffc8844c | tag 5.45.0 |
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 ↑33 credential-shaped strings in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings
adequateStrings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key. 2 other matchs set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
| AWS access key | AWS access key, where fakes are usual |
| private key block | 4 cited: private key block, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
38 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 17 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first38 of 1,902 locked dependencies match 75 published advisories in OSV, 26 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 ui/pnpm-lock.yaml settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| ui/pnpm-lock.yaml | ui/pnpm-lock.yaml — @sentry/nextjs 10.65.0: GHSA-mchm-gjx6-7h55 (critical), fixed in 10.75.2 |
| ui/pnpm-lock.yaml | ui/pnpm-lock.yaml — dompurify 3.4.13: GHSA-cg2g-xh64-v4q7 (critical), fixed in 3.4.17 |
| ui/pnpm-lock.yaml | ui/pnpm-lock.yaml — next 16.3.8: GHSA-2464-fhr4-w9xw (critical), fixed in 16.4.1 |
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.
2 workload settings give a container the host
adequate worth checking first2 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 contrib/k8s/helm/prowler-cli/values.yaml:7 and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| contrib/k8s/helm/prowler-cli/values.yaml | contrib/k8s/helm/prowler-cli/values.yaml:7 — privileged or host namespace |
| kubernetes/job.yaml | kubernetes/job.yaml:55 — 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.
1 environment file is committed
adequate.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.
| .env | .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.
6 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate6 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.
| prowler/providers/azure/azure_provider.py | prowler/providers/azure/azure_provider.py:1314 — outbound call without a timeout |
| prowler/providers/azure/services/defender/defender_service.py | prowler/providers/azure/services/defender/defender_service.py:185 — outbound call without a timeout |
| prowler/providers/image/lib/registry/base.py | prowler/providers/image/lib/registry/base.py:290 — 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.
5 of 6 Kubernetes workloads declare no resource limits
adequate5 workload manifests set no CPU or memory limits. One pod that leaks memory or spins can starve everything else on its node, and the scheduler cannot plan capacity for what it cannot see.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| contrib/k8s/helm/prowler-api/templates/deployment.yaml | contrib/k8s/helm/prowler-api/templates/deployment.yaml — workload with no limits |
| contrib/k8s/helm/prowler-app/templates/api/deployment.yaml | contrib/k8s/helm/prowler-app/templates/api/deployment.yaml — workload with no limits |
| contrib/k8s/helm/prowler-app/templates/ui/deployment.yaml | contrib/k8s/helm/prowler-app/templates/ui/deployment.yaml — workload with no limits |
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.
Relicensed: Apache-2.0 → CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 (2017-07-24) → Apache-2.0 (2021-11-12)
adequateThe root licence changed 2 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".
| c3db5ceef | LICENSE — Apache-2.0 from 2016-06-30 |
| f93eae1c3 | LICENSE — CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 from 2017-07-24 |
| cbd1c3142 | LICENSE — Apache-2.0 from 2021-11-12 |
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, 4 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-14. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 1 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 5.1.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-c2jg-2778-ggm4 (moderate), GHSA-ccqh-6cjc-wp4j (critical), GHSA-fhj4-q47f-w7mv (high) and 1 more 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.
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-2026-100169 | 2026-10-14: CVE-2026-100169 (high): Improper Authentication in the social account linking path of the Prowler API in Prowler from 5.4.0 before 5.35.0 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to ob |
| GHSA-89q3-592m-8p4r | 2026-09-30: GHSA-89q3-592m-8p4r (moderate), fixed in 5.44.0: Tenant members can revoke privileged provider-deletion jobs without management permission |
| GHSA-c2jg-2778-ggm4 | 2026-08-03: GHSA-c2jg-2778-ggm4 (moderate), fixed in 5.37.0: Prowler: Stored XSS in HTML reports through unescaped cloud resource tags |
| GHSA-ccqh-6cjc-wp4j | 2026-07-29: GHSA-ccqh-6cjc-wp4j (critical), fixed in 5.36.0: RCE on Prowler App workers via kubeconfig auth-provider cmd-path |
| GHSA-fhj4-q47f-w7mv | 2026-07-10: GHSA-fhj4-q47f-w7mv (high), fixed in 5.33.1: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Lighthouse Provider |
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 11,552 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.
Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 1 of 3 workloads
adequateBoth probes call the same endpoint. When a dependency slows down, the liveness probe fails with the readiness probe, so the platform restarts pods that only needed taking out of rotation, and a partial outage becomes a full one. Liveness should ask whether the process is alive; readiness whether it can serve.
| contrib/k8s/helm/prowler-ui/values.yaml | contrib/k8s/helm/prowler-ui/values.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
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 of 7 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate1 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.
| contrib/k8s/cronjob.yml | contrib/k8s/cronjob.yml:17 — 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
9 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 8,742 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 440 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- 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 Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (prowler/providers/aws/services/backup/__init__.py). Has a restore ever been rehearsed, and how long did it take?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, 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 Python codebase, with TypeScript alongside (23% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in prowler/, ui/, api/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 85 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/prowler-cloud/prowler/669df91)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 — 87 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 87 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 — 75
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 20,611 · top5 share 0.021 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 300 · per kloc 0.19 · lines read 1,557,996 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.275 · early test per code 0.0 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.289 · early delete per insert 0.261 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,342 · share 0.469 · with tests 630 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 0 · columns added last year 32 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 6,587 · 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 86 |
| 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 4 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 4 · config files 4 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.single_replica | an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 6 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 65 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 1,064 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 10.3 · window last 24 months · authors 440 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 440 · active 12mo 148 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 440 · directories 11 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 440 · one off share 0.573 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 440 · 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 191 |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 11 · joined 25 · regular last year 40 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 23 · window last 24 months · with tracked 1 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 57 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,782 · source 9,343 · test ratio 0.298 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 225 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 8,665 · low content share 0.007 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 56 · with tests 8 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 22 · test files 2,862 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 57 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 3,881 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 15 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 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 17 · ci configs 57 · product files 6,587 |
| 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 201 · share of insertions 0.0001 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.13 · repeat share 0.034 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 8,059 · write once share 0.483 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0184 · product files 6,563 · distinct blocks 322,447 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,569,543 · files 19 · per kloc 0.02 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 12 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | every shipped Dockerfile drops to a non-root user or builds on a non-root base imagedockerfiles 5 |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 361 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 1 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.02 · migrations 99 · irreversible 2 |
| 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.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 1 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on Apache-2.0license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 5 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 368 · added in two years 314 · 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.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 7.0 · days since last tag 8 · commits last 90 days 434 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 12
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Python, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_html | not assessed for Python, 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 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV PyPI prowler-mcp (an empty record for a package published here) did not; 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 ZRGP-F8CW-FJ2F 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/ZRGPF8CWFJ2F?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: 332.0authenticated: False |
| 28.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 45.2s | read the git history | commits: 9309tracked files: 13056 |
| 421.8s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 421.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 725.1s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 725.1s | deleting the working copy |
Total 725.1s ·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).