22109ee · 3,179 commits · 1,446 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 10 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- names OpenSSF README.md:29
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 4 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 27 high or critical in what ships
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 26% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- deep scan blamed 1,444 of 1,444 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑semantica/cli.py is 6,358 lines, 22× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 278 lines. 6 files exceed 2,780 lines, the largest being 6,358. 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 | semantica/cli.py:1 — 6,358 lines (22× median) |
| line-count | semantica/context/context_graph.py:1 — 5,928 lines (21× median) |
| line-count | semantica/explorer/routes/ontology.py:1 — 3,793 lines (13× median) |
| line-count | explorer/src/workspaces/GraphWorkspace/GraphWorkspace.tsx:1 — 3,585 lines (12× median) |
| line-count | semantica/context/context_retriever.py:1 — 3,343 lines (12× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · adequate · ratings ↑9% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate184 of 2126 commits in the last 24 months changed over 2,000 lines of code, not counting reformatting, renames, vendored or generated code. A change that size is rarely reviewed line by line. Ask how they were reviewed, and what made them that large.
| git log --numstat | 184 commits over 2,000 lines |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑Fixes are 54% of recent work, up from 18%
adequateIn the last two quarters 54% of commits were fixes, against 18% in the quarters before. Rising fix work usually means quality debt is coming due, and it takes time that new work would have had.
| fix share by quarter | 64%, 43%, 46%, 27%, 0%, 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 ↑4 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 27 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first4 of 671 locked dependencies match 44 published advisories in OSV, 30 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 uv.lock and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| uv.lock | uv.lock — pillow 12.3.0: GHSA-332p-7hrc-92wf (critical), fixed in 13.0.0 |
| explorer/package-lock.json | explorer/package-lock.json — dompurify 3.4.16: GHSA-cg2g-xh64-v4q7 (critical), fixed in 3.4.17; reached only by the build |
| uv.lock | uv.lock — nbconvert 7.17.1: GHSA-pjvx-prjx-h659 (high), fixed in 7.17.2; a development dependency |
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 advisory against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-08-11. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries.
| GHSA-8c7v-62gr-hj6g | 2026-08-11: GHSA-8c7v-62gr-hj6g (high): semantica: unvalidated redirect targets in ontology URL fetching allow remote attackers to read internal network resources |
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 SQL statements built from strings
adequate6 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 1 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. 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.
| semantica/provenance/storage.py | semantica/provenance/storage.py:950 — SQL built from a string |
| semantica/vector_store/sqlite_vec_store.py | semantica/vector_store/sqlite_vec_store.py:311 — SQL built from a string |
| semantica/vector_store/sqlite_vec_store.py | semantica/vector_store/sqlite_vec_store.py:327 — 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.
1 deserialiser that can run code
adequate1 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.
| semantica/context/context_graph.py | semantica/context/context_graph.py:2135 — 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.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 3 of 3 workloads
adequateBoth probes call the same endpoint. When a dependency slows down, the liveness probe fails with the readiness probe, so the platform restarts pods that only needed taking out of rotation, and a partial outage becomes a full one. Liveness should ask whether the process is alive; readiness whether it can serve.
| deploy/helm/knowledge-explorer/templates/deployment.yaml | deploy/helm/knowledge-explorer/templates/deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| deploy/helm/knowledge-explorer/values.yaml | deploy/helm/knowledge-explorer/values.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| deploy/kubernetes/deployment.yaml | deploy/kubernetes/deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
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 2 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate1 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| deploy/gcp/cloudrun-service.yaml | deploy/gcp/cloudrun-service.yaml:25 — 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.
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 (ARCHITECTURE.md and 1 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 One contributor authored a quarter or more of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- 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 (neptune). 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 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, with TypeScript alongside (17% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in cookbook/, semantica/, explorer/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 14 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/semantica-agi/semantica/22109ee)If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
Rejection log — 93 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 93 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 78
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 3,209 · top5 share 0.051 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 3 · per kloc 0.01 · lines read 538,585 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.861 · early test per code 0.318 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.217 · early delete per insert 0.251 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,053 · share 0.477 · with tests 502 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 537 · compat files 0 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 11 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 2 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 5 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.single_replica | an autoscaler or disruption budget is definedworkloads 2 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 25 · release commits 10 · changelog commits 306 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 1.3 · window last 24 months · authors 140 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 140 · active 12mo 140 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 140 · one off share 0.493 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 140 · top share a quarter or more · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 140 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 756 · window last 24 months · with tracked 142 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 11 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 514 · source 1,051 · test ratio 0.489 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 25 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 2,423 · 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 11 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 515 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 11 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 3 · recent commits 2,299 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 2 · 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 5 · ci configs 11 · product files 537 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.004 · merges 486 · long lived 2 |
| 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 396 · share of insertions 0.0003 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 27.11 · repeat share 0.074 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 698 · write once share 0.189 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0092 · product files 537 · distinct blocks 201,161 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 539,914 · files 72 · per kloc 0.3 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 2 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.notebook_outputs | notebooks are committed cleannotebooks 40 · with outputs 3 · stripping configured False |
| 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 1,400 |
| 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_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 1,305,148 |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | every shipped Dockerfile drops to a non-root user or builds on a non-root base imagedockerfiles 1 |
| 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 51 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 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 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 2 · 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 | little data is committeddata files 0 · licence or card files 0 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 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 0 · files with deprecations 6 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 387 · added in two years 387 · removed within 60 days 5 |
| 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: Apache-2.0 → MIT (2025-11-20)latest MIT · weaker False · licence versions 2 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 15.5 · days since last tag 31 · commits last 90 days 1,118 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 0 · on branch 25 · tags in window 25 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 15
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 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_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 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 7ATC-8G5P-0ZKM 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/7ATC8G5P0ZKM?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: 49.6authenticated: False |
| 5.1s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 8.1s | read the git history | commits: 3179tracked files: 1446 |
| 147.7s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 147.7s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 228.8s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 228.8s | deleting the working copy |
Total 228.8s ·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).