03d8a98 · 50,000 commits · 5,481 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 4 raised something worth a question. 13 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 2 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 | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 8% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- 50% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑1 model weight file committed directly to git
adequate1 model weight files are stored in git itself, not in LFS, DVC or a model hub. Every clone carries them, the history keeps every version for good, and nothing records which run or data produced them.
| pkg/common/onedir/_salt_onedir_extras.pth | pkg/common/onedir/_salt_onedir_extras.pth — weights in git |
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.
salt/modules/win_lgpo.py is 10,624 lines, 78× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 135 lines. 87 files exceed 1,350 lines, the largest being 10,624. 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 | salt/modules/win_lgpo.py:1 — 10,624 lines (78× median) |
| line-count | salt/states/file.py:1 — 9,839 lines (72× median) |
| line-count | salt/cloud/deploy/bootstrap-salt.sh:1 — 9,191 lines (68× median) |
| line-count | salt/modules/file.py:1 — 8,405 lines (62× median) |
| line-count | salt/minion.py:1 — 6,646 lines (49× 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.
594 errors caught and discarded in product code
adequate594 places catch an error and do nothing with it, across 221 files (0.5 per thousand lines). Each is a failure the system will not report. They surface later as problems nobody can explain, and they are cheap to fix now.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| cicd/windows-ssl-104135-patch.py | cicd/windows-ssl-104135-patch.py:84 — error caught and discarded |
| cicd/windows-ssl-104135-patch.py | cicd/windows-ssl-104135-patch.py:86 — error caught and discarded |
| noxfile.py | noxfile.py:1458 — error caught and discarded |
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 ↑Tests are retried until they pass
adequate13 tests are individually marked to retry. A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| tests/integration/modules/test_linux_shadow.py | tests/integration/modules/test_linux_shadow.py:139 — test retry |
| tests/integration/modules/test_status.py | tests/integration/modules/test_status.py:14 — test retry |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 4,178 non-merge commits among 161 authors; across all 36,667 commits read, less than a quarter of 36,667. In a project with 161 recent contributors and at least 10 years of history, that is a question about one person's role rather than a fragile team — but it is the question to ask.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 4,178 commits; bus factor 1; 161 authors |
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 bus factor fell from 3 to 1
adequateYear by year, newest first, the number of people who wrote half the changes was 1, 1, 3, 3. The team narrowed to one person, which is a different risk from one that always was: the code does not say why.
| bus factor by year | 1, 1, 3, 3 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑70 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. 1 other match set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
| private key block | 5 cited: private key block, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate3 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; 9 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.
| .github/workflows/build-packages.yml | .github/workflows/build-packages.yml:95 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/build-packages.yml | .github/workflows/build-packages.yml:602 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/dependabot-sync.yml | .github/workflows/dependabot-sync.yml:49 — 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 SQL statement built from strings
adequate1 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| salt/spm/pkgdb/sqlite3.py | salt/spm/pkgdb/sqlite3.py:96 — SQL built from a string |
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.
12 deserialisers that can run code
adequate12 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (`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.
| salt/modules/junos.py | salt/modules/junos.py:1860 — code-executing deserialiser |
| salt/modules/win_iis.py | salt/modules/win_iis.py:190 — code-executing deserialiser |
| salt/serializers/yaml.py | salt/serializers/yaml.py:46 — 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.
12 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 5 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-01-30. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 70 records name salt with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2020-8028, CVE-2021-21996, CVE-2021-22004, …).
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-77w2-v593-vxvv | 2026-01-30: GHSA-77w2-v593-vxvv (high), fixed in 3006.17: Salt junos Module Vulnerable to Code Injection via Specially Crafted YAML Payload |
| GHSA-vcf3-26xf-fw4m | 2026-01-30: GHSA-vcf3-26xf-fw4m (high), fixed in 3006.17: Salt Authentication Protocol Version Downgrade Allows Minion Impersonation |
| GHSA-4j59-vv55-q6h3 | 2025-06-13: GHSA-4j59-vv55-q6h3 (moderate), fixed in 3006.12: Salt's salt.auth.pki module does not properly authenticate callers |
| GHSA-7f3f-x5f5-79gw | 2025-06-13: GHSA-7f3f-x5f5-79gw (moderate), fixed in 3006.12: Salt's file contents overwrite the VirtKey class |
| GHSA-8pcp-r83j-fc92 | 2025-06-13: GHSA-8pcp-r83j-fc92 (critical), fixed in 3006.12: Salt vulnerable to directory traversal attack in file receiving method |
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 3,638 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.
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.
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 (agents/docs/architecture.md and 2 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 1,454 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 2,636 commits landed in the last year, against 1,542 the year before (+71%). 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 05.1 and 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 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 Python codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in salt/, requirements/, pkg/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- 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/saltstack/salt/03d8a98)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 — 91 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 91 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 — 58
| 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 (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026)files 16,132 · top5 share 0.018 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 567 · per kloc 0.52 · lines read 1,085,731 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) · late test per code 1.007 · early test per code 0.841 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) · late delete per insert 0.405 · early delete per insert 0.526 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,395 · share 0.602 · with tests 840 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.008 · code files 1,043 · compat files 8 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 16 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.print_logging | raw prints are few, or outnumbered by logger callsprints 136 · logger calls 4,173 |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 4 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 30 · release commits 35 · changelog commits 106 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 161 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 17 · joined 33 · regular last year 47 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 430 · window last 24 months · with tracked 296 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 43 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,149 · source 3,192 · test ratio 0.673 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026)sampled 36,672 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) · low content share 0.034 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 42 · with tests 12 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 43 · test files 2,434 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 43 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.005 · reverts 22 · recent commits 4,178 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 11 · ci configs 43 · product files 1,043 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.103 · merges 58 · long lived 6 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.018 · commits 3,638 · over 2000 lines 64 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was documentation and notebooks (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 (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) · largest commits 395a33a..ada6f13 · bursts explained 3 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) · length stdev 27.98 · repeat share 0.213 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0148 · product files 1,043 · distinct blocks 374,488 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 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.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 1 |
| 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 5 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 5 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 5 · stated in headers or notices 5 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | the newer API version is recent; the old one may be on its way outmonths together 2 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 4 · files with deprecations 10 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 24 · added in two years 8 · 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 1 · 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 9.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 647 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyed, in the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026)elsewhere 35 · on branch 99 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) |
| 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.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.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 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 (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | no lockfile to date |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (2 Dec 2016 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.dependency_pinning | no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile outside development, test and example paths |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no lockfile this survey can read, or a collector older than 0.4.0 |
| 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 | manifest licence 'Apache Software License 2.0' is not a recognised SPDX identifier |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 70 records name salt with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2020-8028, CVE-2021-21996, CVE-2021-22004, …) |
| 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 BXTY-HF5Y-YKTQ 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/BXTYHF5YYKTQ?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: 611.4authenticated: False |
| 70.3s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 133.9s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 5481 |
| 515.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 515.1s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 811.1s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 811.1s | deleting the working copy |
Total 811.1s ·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).