76723ee · 50,000 commits · 3,715 files
Issued 2026-10-22
Reads strong: 3 of 5 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity are adequate. 10 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
This repository reads strong. Show it in your README: the badge links to a page where anyone can check the reading. 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/HMKZRVQNPX02?via=badge)- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 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 | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 3% 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 ↑Commit messages are templated rather than written
adequate35% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 32.2 characters. A log written by someone explaining their reasoning to a future reader does not look like this. The log is therefore weak evidence of intent, whatever the code is like. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) only; older history was not read.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| commit-subjects | 3989× 'Update rabbitmq-components.mk' |
| commit-subjects | 836× 'Update erlang.mk' |
| commit-subjects | 256× 'Travis CI: Update config from rabbitmq-common' |
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.
erlang.mk is 4,972 lines, 54× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 92 lines. 56 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,972. 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 | erlang.mk:1 — 4,972 lines (54× median) |
| line-count | deps/rabbit/src/rabbit_fifo.erl:1 — 4,834 lines (52× median) |
| line-count | deps/rabbitmq_stream/src/rabbit_stream_reader.erl:1 — 4,553 lines (49× median) |
| line-count | deps/rabbit/src/rabbit_fifo_v8.erl:1 — 4,332 lines (47× median) |
| line-count | deps/rabbit/src/rabbit_amqp_session.erl:1 — 4,313 lines (46× 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 ↑Pinned dependencies have not moved in 54 months
adequateThe lockfile last changed 1646 days before the newest commit, and 9,304 commits have landed since. Every security fix published upstream in that time is absent until someone updates it, and the longer the gap the larger and riskier that update becomes.
| git log -1 -- deps/rabbitmq_consistent_hash_exchange/examples/ruby/Gemfile.lock | deps/rabbitmq_consistent_hash_exchange/examples/ruby/Gemfile.lock last changed 2022-04-20 |
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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑Effort is shifting from building to rewriting
adequateDeleted lines per line added rose from 0.40 to 0.75 between the first and second halves of this history. Rework is normal and often healthy, but a rising ratio means an increasing share of the team's time is spent replacing code that already exists rather than building what does not. Whether that is deliberate repayment or churn is a question for the team. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) only; older history was not read.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| deletions-per-insertion | first half 0.40, second half 0.75 (split 2019-07-22) |
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, v4.4.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v3.13.0. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) only; older history was not read.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| 24d5157cd | tag v4.4.0 |
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 ↑9 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.
| AWS access key | 4 cited: AWS access key, where fakes are usual |
| private key block | 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.
2 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 | packaging/docker-image/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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate4 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day; 1 step pipes a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/test-authnz.yaml | .github/workflows/test-authnz.yaml:48 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/test-make-target.yaml | .github/workflows/test-make-target.yaml:65 — action pinned by tag |
| deps/rabbitmq_ct_helpers/tools/terraform/direct-vms/templates/setup-erlang.sh | deps/rabbitmq_ct_helpers/tools/terraform/direct-vms/templates/setup-erlang.sh:190 — download piped into 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.
1 vendored component 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.
| deps/trust_store_http | deps/trust_store_http — 10 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.
86 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 22 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-18. 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 83 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 3.13.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-27gv-h5q6-cpwg (low) is fixed in the surveyed commit; which release carries it 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.
| GHSA-j6hc-926v-qwq2 | 2026-09-18: GHSA-j6hc-926v-qwq2 (moderate), fixed in 4.2.11: RabbitMQ STOMP consumers retain OAuth queue access after JWT expiration |
| GHSA-6jvc-jx8w-m757 | 2026-09-18: GHSA-6jvc-jx8w-m757 (low), fixed in 4.2.11: RabbitMQ Stream Publisher Management API Discloses Unauthorized Vhost and Stream Existence |
| GHSA-342v-cj47-c9g8 | 2026-09-18: GHSA-342v-cj47-c9g8 (low), fixed in 4.2.11: Cross-vhost Stream consumer virtual-host existence disclosure |
| GHSA-5jgm-jxp7-gwjh | 2026-09-18: GHSA-5jgm-jxp7-gwjh (moderate), fixed in 4.3.5: MQTT retained message store has no size or count limit and is never reclaimed |
| GHSA-6gmw-wxch-cvvc | 2026-08-18: GHSA-6gmw-wxch-cvvc (moderate), fixed in 3.13.19: Shovel URI credentials disclosed to read-only monitoring users via the shovel management HTTP 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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 4 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
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
5 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 (deps/rabbitmq_cli/DESIGN.md). 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 350 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 2,178 commits landed in the last year, against 1,531 the year before (+42%). 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 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- 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 coverageNot rated: only 4 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- 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 Erlang codebase, with Elixir alongside (25% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Erlang in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in deps/, release-notes/, packaging/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (.oss-scanner/Dockerfile and 17 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/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/76723ee)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 — 93 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 93 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 — 46
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few files, in the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026)files 8,225 · top5 share 0.022 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 303 · per kloc 0.48 · lines read 634,256 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) · late test per code 0.727 · early test per code 0.176 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 431 · share 0.589 · with tests 254 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 3,020 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthswindow last 24 months · authors 350 · top share a quarter or more |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 80 |
| 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 7 · joined 11 · regular last year 28 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 983 · source 2,153 · test ratio 0.457 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026)sampled 36,764 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) · low content share 0.048 |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 18 · with tests 4 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 1,334 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 18 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.008 · reverts 28 · recent commits 3,714 |
| 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 4 · ci configs 18 · product files 1,177 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.026 · merges 1,551 · long lived 41 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.01 · commits 3,284 · over 2000 lines 33 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was vendored dependencies (95% 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 it, in the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) · largest commits 7ca1de5..30e1bf5 · bursts explained 11 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 3 |
| 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.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 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.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 2,975 |
| 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.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 20 · added in two years 3 · 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 0 · 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 12.0 · days since last tag 2 · commits last 90 days 1,121 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 47
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no dependency manifest of the product's own was found |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Erlang or Elixir, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.merge_discipline | not observable from this history: it mirrors a Mercurial repository, where review happens outside git |
| 02.ci_presence | not observable from this history: it mirrors a Mercurial repository, whose process runs outside git |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | not observable from this history: it mirrors a Mercurial repository, whose process runs outside git |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (19 Apr 2012 to 22 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for Erlang or Elixir, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for Erlang or Elixir, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for Erlang or Elixir, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for Erlang or Elixir, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | not assessed for Mix: this survey does not read their dependency files |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 85 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version is only known to be at least 3.13.0; 1 is fixed in the surveyed commit, and the release users run is not placed by this history |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter HMKZ-RVQN-PX02 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/HMKZRVQNPX02?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: 235.7authenticated: False |
| 26.3s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 45.7s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 3715 |
| 146.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 146.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 231.3s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 231.3s | deleting the working copy |
Total 231.3s ·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).