7d52e01 · 50,000 commits · 5,016 files
Issued 2026-09-29
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance.
106 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 4 raised something worth a question. 6 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 6% 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 · adequate · ratings ↑guides/assets/javascripts/@hotwired--turbo.js is 3,939 lines, 62× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 63 lines. 27 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,939. 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 | guides/assets/javascripts/@hotwired--turbo.js:1 — 3,939 lines (62× median) |
| line-count | actionview/lib/action_view/helpers/form_helper.rb:1 — 2,768 lines (43× median) |
| line-count | actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/routing/mapper.rb:1 — 2,558 lines (40× median) |
| line-count | activerecord/lib/active_record/relation/query_methods.rb:1 — 2,379 lines (37× median) |
| line-count | activerecord/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/abstract/schema_statements.rb:1 — 2,058 lines (32× 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 ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v7.2.4, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v8.1.0.beta1. 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 (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) only; older history was not read.
| 48e05e635 | tag v7.2.4 |
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 ↑12 deserialisers that can run code
adequate12 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (pickle, `yaml.load` without a safe loader, object streams, `unserialize`). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.
| actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/http/rack_cache.rb | actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/http/rack_cache.rb:23 — code-executing deserialiser |
| activerecord/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/ractor_connection_handler/abstract_proxy_adapter.rb | activerecord/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/ractor_connection_handler/abstract_proxy_adapter.rb:144 — code-executing deserialiser |
| activerecord/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/ractor_connection_handler/abstract_proxy_adapter/query_request.rb | activerecord/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/ractor_connection_handler/abstract_proxy_adapter/query_request.rb:23 — code-executing deserialiser |
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.
43 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 41 high or critical
adequate43 of 981 locked dependencies match 130 published advisories in OSV, 41 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.
| Gemfile.lock | Gemfile.lock — rack-session 2.1.1: GHSA-33qg-7wpp-89cq (critical), fixed in 2.1.2 |
| Gemfile.lock | Gemfile.lock — addressable 2.8.7: GHSA-h27x-rffw-24p4 (high), fixed in 2.9.0 |
| Gemfile.lock | Gemfile.lock — erb 5.1.1: GHSA-q339-8rmv-2mhv (high), fixed in 4.0.3.1 |
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.
18 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-07-29. 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 18 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
| GHSA-xr9x-r78c-5hrm | 2026-07-29: GHSA-xr9x-r78c-5hrm (critical), fixed in 7.2.3.2: Possible arbitrary file read and remote code execution in Active Storage variant processing |
| GHSA-73f9-jhhh-hr5m | 2026-03-23: GHSA-73f9-jhhh-hr5m (low), fixed in 7.2.3.1: Possible glob injection in Active Storage DiskService |
| GHSA-9xrj-h377-fr87 | 2026-03-23: GHSA-9xrj-h377-fr87 (low), fixed in 7.2.3.1: Possible path traversal in Active Storage DiskService |
| GHSA-p9fm-f462-ggrg | 2026-03-23: GHSA-p9fm-f462-ggrg (low), fixed in 7.2.3.1: Possible DoS vulnerability in Active Storage proxy mode via multi-range requests |
| GHSA-2j26-frm8-cmj9 | 2026-03-23: GHSA-2j26-frm8-cmj9 (low), fixed in 7.2.3.1: Possible DoS vulnerability in Active Support number helpers |
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 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.
| 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
3 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 2,054 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 3,729 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 Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- 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 Ruby codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Ruby in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in activerecord/, guides/, activesupport/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (railties/lib/rails/generators/rails/app/templates/Dockerfile.tt). 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/rails/rails/7d52e01)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 — 100 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 100 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 — 67
| 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 (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026)files 7,219 · top5 share 0.029 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 158 · per kloc 0.23 · lines read 690,245 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) · late test per code 0.957 · early test per code 1.297 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) · late delete per insert 0.652 · early delete per insert 0.705 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 868 · share 0.508 · with tests 441 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.004 · code files 1,555 · compat files 6 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 3 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 2 |
| 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 11 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 2 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 19 · release commits 1 · changelog commits 450 |
| 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 3,729 · top share less than a quarter |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 712 |
| 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 20 · joined 46 · regular last year 90 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 2,833 · window last 24 months · with tracked 206 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 12 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,032 · source 3,561 · test ratio 0.571 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026)sampled 31,616 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) · low content share 0.009 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 12 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 2,885 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 12 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.01 · reverts 39 · recent commits 3,962 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 3 · commits since 9 · 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 4 · ci configs 12 · product files 1,555 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.1 · merges 2,816 · long lived 281 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.003 · commits 3,715 · over 2000 lines 13 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition threshold, in the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026)gap seconds 180 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) · min add ratio 3.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) · length stdev 24.36 · repeat share 0.038 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0046 · product files 1,547 · distinct blocks 99,865 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 694,220 · files 1 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 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 4,011 |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 24 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 2 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.091 · migrations 11 · irreversible 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.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.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 4 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 3 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 3 · stated in headers or notices 3 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 1 · files with deprecations 8 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 180 · added in two years 11 · 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 0.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 1,291 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 33
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, stay |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for Ruby: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | a reporting host is named, but no setting shows whether it is used by default |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 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 |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (5 Dec 2014 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was added outside test and fixture paths in the 20,000 most recent commits scanned; older history was not read |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile outside development, test and example paths |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for Ruby, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 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 | one API version is served, or none |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 131 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version could not be placed |
| 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 QMYJ-R7SC-NAT9 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/QMYJR7SCNAT9?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-29 · shown | borehole 0.7.6 | 6 | adequate |
16 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-25 | borehole 0.7.15 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.4 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 6 | 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 |
| 38.2s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 58.8s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 5016 |
| 231.5s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 231.5s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 322.3s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 322.3s | deleting the working copy |
Total 322.3s ·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).