e0546a4 · 32,225 commits · 10,477 files
Issued 2026-10-22
1 advisory against this project is on CISA's known-exploited list; whether it affects the surveyed commit could not be told.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 17 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.65 1 advisory against this project is on CISA's known-exploited list; whether it affects the surveyed commit could not be told
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions AGENTS.md:3
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 05.26 44 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 70 high or critical in what ships
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 49% 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
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑2 base images float: no version, or `latest`
adequate2 of 9 `FROM` lines in product Dockerfiles name an image without a version, or with `latest`. Each build pulls whatever the registry serves that day, so the image that ships can change without a commit, and last month's build cannot be reproduced. Pin a version, or a digest.
| docker/ray-llm/Dockerfile | docker/ray-llm/Dockerfile:57 — base image without a version |
| docker/ray-llm/Dockerfile | docker/ray-llm/Dockerfile:112 — base 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.
python/ray/data/dataset.py is 8,940 lines, 70× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 127 lines. 88 files exceed 1,270 lines, the largest being 8,940. 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 | python/ray/data/dataset.py:1 — 8,940 lines (70× median) |
| line-count | python/ray/serve/_private/deployment_state.py:1 — 7,702 lines (60× median) |
| line-count | python/ray/data/read_api.py:1 — 6,780 lines (53× median) |
| line-count | python/ray/rllib/algorithms/algorithm_config.py:1 — 6,631 lines (52× median) |
| line-count | python/ray/_raylet.pyx:1 — 5,538 lines (43× 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 · strong · ratings ↑38 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate38 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Apr 2022. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| python/ray/tune/tune.py | python/ray/tune/tune.py — deprecated since Apr 2022 |
| python/ray/data/read_api.py | python/ray/data/read_api.py — deprecated since May 2022 |
| python/ray/tune/resources.py | python/ray/tune/resources.py — deprecated since May 2022 |
| python/ray/train/torch/train_loop_utils.py | python/ray/train/torch/train_loop_utils.py — deprecated since Jun 2022 |
| python/ray/util/client_connect.py | python/ray/util/client_connect.py — deprecated since Jun 2022 |
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, ray-2.59.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is ray-0.7.0. 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.
| dd83c3a70 | tag ray-2.59.0 |
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 ↑5 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 | docker/base-extra/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/ray-llm/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/ray-ml/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/ray-torch/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.
44 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 70 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first44 of 908 locked dependencies match 121 published advisories in OSV, 70 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 python/ray/dashboard/client/package-lock.json settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| python/ray/dashboard/client/package-lock.json | python/ray/dashboard/client/package-lock.json — form-data 3.0.1: GHSA-fjxv-7rqg-78g4 (critical), fixed in 3.0.4 |
| python/ray/dashboard/client/package-lock.json | python/ray/dashboard/client/package-lock.json — proxy-addr 2.0.7: GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h (critical), fixed in 2.0.8 |
| python/ray/dashboard/client/package-lock.json | python/ray/dashboard/client/package-lock.json — websocket-driver 0.7.4: GHSA-xv26-6w52-cph6 (critical), fixed in 0.7.5 |
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
adequatepython/ray/dashboard/client/.env.production.local 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.
| python/ray/dashboard/client/.env.production.local | python/ray/dashboard/client/.env.production.local — 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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate7 steps pipe 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.
| .buildkite/cicd.rayci.yml | .buildkite/cicd.rayci.yml:8 — 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.
28 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate28 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.
| python/ray/autoscaler/_private/spark/node_provider.py | python/ray/autoscaler/_private/spark/node_provider.py:77 — outbound call without a timeout |
| python/ray/autoscaler/_private/spark/node_provider.py | python/ray/autoscaler/_private/spark/node_provider.py:134 — outbound call without a timeout |
| python/ray/autoscaler/v2/instance_manager/cloud_providers/kuberay/ippr_provider.py | python/ray/autoscaler/v2/instance_manager/cloud_providers/kuberay/ippr_provider.py:677 — 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.
17 shell commands built from strings
adequate17 places run a command through a shell (`shell=True`, `os.system`, `exec` with a template) rather than passing arguments. Where any part comes from outside, it is command injection. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| python/ray/_private/runtime_env/context.py | python/ray/_private/runtime_env/context.py:130 — command run through a shell |
| python/ray/autoscaler/_private/fake_multi_node/command_runner.py | python/ray/autoscaler/_private/fake_multi_node/command_runner.py:30 — command run through a shell |
| python/ray/autoscaler/_private/fake_multi_node/node_provider.py | python/ray/autoscaler/_private/fake_multi_node/node_provider.py:476 — command run through 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.
66 deserialisers that can run code
adequate66 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (pickle, `yaml.load` without a safe loader). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| python/ray/_private/function_manager.py | python/ray/_private/function_manager.py:278 — code-executing deserialiser |
| python/ray/_private/function_manager.py | python/ray/_private/function_manager.py:314 — code-executing deserialiser |
| python/ray/_private/function_manager.py | python/ray/_private/function_manager.py:683 — 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.
4 vendored components 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.
| ci/ray_ci/deps/BUILD.bazel | ci/ray_ci/deps/BUILD.bazel — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| ci/ray_ci/deps/aliases.bzl | ci/ray_ci/deps/aliases.bzl — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| thirdparty/patches | thirdparty/patches — 27 tracked files, no licence file |
| thirdparty/protobuf | thirdparty/protobuf — 1 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.
6 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 4 high or critical, 1 on CISA's known-exploited list
adequate1 of them is on CISA's known-exploited list: check first whether the release you run has the fix. The newest was published on 2026-07-01. 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 0.7.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-q279-jhrf-cc6v (critical), GHSA-hhrp-gw25-jr43 (high), GHSA-q5fh-2hc8-f6rq (moderate) 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. The record is incomplete: NVD: 30 records name ray with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2002-2036, CVE-2004-0701, CVE-2006-4049, …).
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-q279-jhrf-cc6v | 2025-11-26: GHSA-q279-jhrf-cc6v (critical; on CISA's Known Exploited list), fixed in 2.52.0: Critical RCE Vulnerability against Ray Devs exploitable via Browser (Safari & Firefox) due to DNS Rebinding Attack |
| GHSA-hhrp-gw25-jr43 | 2026-07-01: GHSA-hhrp-gw25-jr43 (high), fixed in >= 2.56.0: Arbitrary code execution via ray.data.read_webdataset default decoder: pickle.loads(value) and torch.load(weights_only=False) |
| GHSA-mw35-8rx3-xf9r | 2026-04-21: GHSA-mw35-8rx3-xf9r (high), fixed in 2.55.0: Remote Code Execution via Parquet Arrow Extension Type Deserialization |
| CVE-2026-32981 | 2026-03-17: CVE-2026-32981 (high): A path traversal vulnerability was identified in Ray Dashboard (default port 8265) in Ray versions prior to 2.8.1. Due to improper validation and sanitization o |
| GHSA-q5fh-2hc8-f6rq | 2026-02-20: GHSA-q5fh-2hc8-f6rq (moderate), fixed in 2.54.0: Dashboard DELETE endpoints allow unauthenticated browser-triggered DoS (Serve shutdown / job deletion) |
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 7,887 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.
Sends usage data to usage-stats.ray.io by default
adequatepython/ray/_common/usage/usage_lib.py sends to usage-stats.ray.io, and python/ray/_common/usage/usage_lib.py leaves reporting on as shipped. Every installation reports to the vendor unless its operator turns this off. For a buyer running it inside their own product, that is an outbound data flow to a third party: ask what is sent, how often, and whether the buyer's customers were told.
| python/ray/_common/usage/usage_lib.py | python/ray/_common/usage/usage_lib.py:34 — reports to usage-stats.ray.io |
| python/ray/_common/usage/usage_lib.py | python/ray/_common/usage/usage_lib.py:504 — the reporting setting is on by default |
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.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 of 1 deployments run a single replica
adequate1 deployments set `replicas: 1`, and nothing (an autoscaler, a disruption budget) adds more. Every deploy and every node drain is downtime, and the availability the buyer inherits has a ceiling.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| release/k8s_tests/ray_rayservice_template.yaml | release/k8s_tests/ray_rayservice_template.yaml — replicas: 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.
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
11 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 (doc/source/serve/architecture.md and 3 more). 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 1,638 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 Experiment tracking is configured (comet_ml, mlflow, tensorboard, wandb). Can the model that ships be tied to the run, data and code that produced it?
- measured No model card is in the tree. What is the model's intended use, what was it trained on, and where does it fail?
- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured Alert rules are defined in the repository. Who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Python codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in python/, src/, release/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker/base-deps/Dockerfile and 8 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/ray-project/ray/e0546a4)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 — 88 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 88 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 — 71
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 33,944 · top5 share 0.019 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 2,181 · per kloc 1.12 · lines read 1,940,124 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.697 · early test per code 0.319 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.611 · early delete per insert 0.616 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,548 · share 0.54 · with tests 836 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.002 · code files 3,463 · compat files 8 |
| 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 97 |
| 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 52 |
| 06.alert_rules | alert rules are defined as codealert files 1 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 17 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 5 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 10.7 · window last 24 months · authors 1,638 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 1,638 · active 12mo 485 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 1,638 · directories 10 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 1,638 · one off share 0.56 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 1,638 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than two years ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 724 |
| 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 49 · joined 90 · regular last year 163 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 782 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 65 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,399 · source 5,803 · test ratio 0.413 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 138 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 32,113 · low content share 0.001 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 56 · with tests 5 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 30 · test files 3,609 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 65 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.011 · reverts 101 · recent commits 9,413 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 994 · days since lockfile changed 80 |
| 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 8 · ci configs 65 · product files 3,463 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.018 · commits 8,102 · over 2000 lines 146 |
| 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 49 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 20.8 · repeat share 0.0 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 3,589 · write once share 0.277 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0113 · product files 3,420 · distinct blocks 582,052 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,947,982 · files 116 · per kloc 0.11 |
| 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 7,887 |
| 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.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.resource_limits | every workload declares limitsworkloads 1 · without limits 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.dataset_provenance | data files carry a licence or carddata files 0 · licence or card files 7 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 83 |
| 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 393 · added in two years 74 · 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 | relicensed only between permissive licences: MIT → BSD-3-Clause (2016-06-06) → Apache-2.0 (2016-11-02)latest Apache-2.0 · weaker False · licence versions 3 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 22.0 · days since last tag 13 · commits last 90 days 1,077 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 17
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | readiness and liveness are distinct, or not both set |
| 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 | too few notebooks |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 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.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 | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 30 records name ray with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2002-2036, CVE-2004-0701, CVE-2006-4049, …); 3 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 FZ2B-9GJS-5PME 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/FZ2B9GJS5PME?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: 804.4authenticated: False |
| 70.4s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 121.8s | read the git history | commits: 32225tracked files: 10477 |
| 557.4s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 557.4s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 858.1s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 858.1s | deleting the working copy |
Total 858.1s ·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).