611c616 · 6,495 commits · 130 files
Issued 2026-09-23
Reads strong: 4 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
35 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance and Organization & Key-Person Risk are adequate. 2 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 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 | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | strong | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 5% 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
- deep scan blamed 130 of 130 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑tests/test_requests.py is 3,095 lines, 23× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 129 lines. 1 file exceed 1,290 lines, the largest being 3,095. 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.
| line-count | tests/test_requests.py:1 — 3,095 lines (23× 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. 7 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑The contributor who wrote a quarter or more of this has not committed here for more than three years
adequateOne person authored a quarter or more of 4,883 commits and has not committed here for more than three years, while the repository has kept moving. The concentration figure alone would not show this. Whoever is changing this code now is not the person who wrote most of it, which is the situation an acquirer is usually told they are avoiding. The history shows only that no commits of theirs landed here, not why.
| last-commit-by-top-author | last commit more than three years ago, measured to the survey |
| git shortlog -sn | top author a quarter or more of 4,883 commits |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 5 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Observability & Operations
06 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 3 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
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.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Incident response practice is not visible in a repository.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- Hiring pipeline, bench depth and retention are not visible in a repository.
- Whether the dominant contributor is part of the transaction.
- Seniority, levelling and who actually mentors whom.
- Whether the team wants to stay after the deal closes.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Roadmap credibility requires the data room.
- Whether technical debt is acknowledged and funded.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- Incident history and failure-mode analysis are not in the repository.
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- Whether anyone watches the telemetry that exists.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is a Python codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- 794 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing?
- The bulk of this system sits in requests/, ext/, docs/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- There is no deployment configuration in the repository. Where does this actually run today, and who owns that environment?
- 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?
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.
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.
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/psf/requests/611c616)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 — 33 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 33 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 — 31
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 541 · top5 share 0.25 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 12 · per kloc 0.76 · lines read 15,726 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.487 · early test per code 0.08 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.801 · early delete per insert 0.821 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository starts a long-running server · files read 78 |
| 06.structured_logging | not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository starts a long-running server |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository starts a long-running server |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the historyauthors 794 · top share a quarter or more · bus factor 3 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 794 · active 12mo 24 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 794 · directories 5 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | a healthy share of contributors committed more than onceshare 0.598 · authors 794 · one commit authors 475 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of change arrives through a reviewable pathmerges 1,612 · commits 6,495 · reviewed share 0.3 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 8 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 15 · source 37 · test ratio 0.405 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 162 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 4,883 · low content share 0.155 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 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 0 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 27.41 · repeat share 0.148 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 541 · write once share 0.222 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0 · product files 20 · distinct blocks 4,430 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; history is scanned at --deep · patterns 7 · files read 78 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | dependencies are substantially pinnedunpinned 0 |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 7 · truncated False · added lines 125,403 |
| 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 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 2
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter YDJB-49C6-AQEB at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 36 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/YDJB49C6AQEB?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 · shown | borehole 0.1.0.dev0 | 3 | strong |
20 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.0 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-24 | borehole 0.4.0 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-24 | borehole 0.4.0.dev2 | 3 | adequate |
| 2026-09-24 | borehole 0.4.0.dev1 | 3 | adequate |
What this scan did with the repository — 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 0.5s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 13.3authenticated: False |
| 3.3s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 4.5s | read the git history | commits: 6495tracked files: 130 |
| 9.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: True |
| 9.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 9.6s ·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).