a5b3f7f · 871 commits · 10,738 files
Issued 2026-11-07
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
101 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 16 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 05.61 Part of the code is under a separate licence: ee/ ee/LICENSE
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 91 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 4 high or critical in what ships
- 5 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 1 credential-shaped match is withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 17% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑front/lib/internal_api/billing.pb.ex is 1,960 lines, 32× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 61 lines. 45 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 1,960. 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 | front/lib/internal_api/billing.pb.ex:1 — 1,960 lines (32× median) |
| line-count | badge/lib/internal_api/plumber.pipeline.pb.ex:1 — 1,718 lines (28× median) |
| line-count | notifications/lib/internal_api/plumber.pipeline.pb.ex:1 — 1,718 lines (28× median) |
| line-count | guard/lib/guard/id/api.ex:1 — 1,684 lines (27× median) |
| line-count | guard/lib/internal_api/plumber.pipeline.pb.ex:1 — 1,631 lines (26× 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 ↑5% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate42 of 774 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 | 42 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 · strong · ratings ↑Node.js 16 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 16 (end of life 2023-09-11). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2023-09-11. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| front/Dockerfile | front/Dockerfile — Node.js 16, end of life 2023-09-11 |
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, v1.6.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest pre-release on it is v1.2.0-rc.1. 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.
| 6c7ea09a4 | tag v1.6.0 |
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 ↑1 credential-shaped string 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. 4 other matchs 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 | 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.
7 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 | feature_provider/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | helm-chart/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | plumber/block/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | plumber/definition_validator/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.
91 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 4 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first91 of 1,206 locked dependencies match 202 published advisories in OSV, 90 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
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 auth/mix.lock and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| auth/mix.lock | auth/mix.lock — grpc 0.11.5: GHSA-grp7-v8xh-rj7h (critical), fixed in 1.0.0 |
| ee/gofer/mix.lock | ee/gofer/mix.lock — grpc 0.5.0: GHSA-grp7-v8xh-rj7h (critical), fixed in 1.0.0 |
| branch_hub/mix.lock | branch_hub/mix.lock — grpc 0.5.0-beta.1: GHSA-grp7-v8xh-rj7h (critical), fixed in 1.0.0 |
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.
Part of the code is under a separate licence: ee/
adequateA directory named for a paid edition carries its own licence. That code is usually not open source even where the rest is; what the buyer may do with each part differs.
| ee/LICENSE | ee/LICENSE — licence: unrecognised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
2 environment files are committed
adequatefront/env/.env.internal-apis, github_hooks/.env are 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.
| front/env/.env.internal-apis | front/env/.env.internal-apis — committed environment file |
| github_hooks/.env | github_hooks/.env — 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.
3 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate3 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.
| bootstrapper/pkg/github/github.go | bootstrapper/pkg/github/github.go:52 — outbound call without a timeout |
| ee/velocity/pkg/collector/superjerry.go | ee/velocity/pkg/collector/superjerry.go:177 — outbound call without a timeout |
| ee/velocity/pkg/proc/summary/downloader.go | ee/velocity/pkg/proc/summary/downloader.go:55 — 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.
32 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate32 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| front/assets/js/deployments/components/basics.js | front/assets/js/deployments/components/basics.js:80 — HTML from a variable |
| front/assets/js/deployments/components/credentials.js | front/assets/js/deployments/components/credentials.js:145 — HTML from a variable |
| front/assets/js/deployments/components/credentials.js | front/assets/js/deployments/components/credentials.js:165 — HTML from a variable |
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 ↑Has a reporting host, telemetry.semaphore.io; its default could not be read
adequatebootstrapper/pkg/installation/installation.go names telemetry.semaphore.io as a place to report to, and no setting read here shows whether reporting is on as shipped. For a buyer running it inside their own product, ask whether copies report by default, what is sent, how often, and whether the buyer's customers were told.
| bootstrapper/pkg/installation/installation.go | bootstrapper/pkg/installation/installation.go:42 — names telemetry.semaphore.io |
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.
Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 9 of 40 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.
| auth/helm/templates/deployment.yaml | auth/helm/templates/deployment.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| badge/helm/templates/badges-dpl.yaml | badge/helm/templates/badges-dpl.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| front/helm/templates/job-page.yaml | front/helm/templates/job-page.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.
An error reporter is installed but never initialised
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.
36 of 36 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate36 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.
| artifacthub/helm/values.yaml | artifacthub/helm/values.yaml:1 — image without a version |
| auth/helm/values.yaml | auth/helm/values.yaml:1 — image without a version |
| badge/helm/values.yaml | badge/helm/values.yaml:2 — 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.
8 of 80 deployments run a single replica
adequate8 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.
| artifacthub/helm/templates/minimal-deployment.yaml | artifacthub/helm/templates/minimal-deployment.yaml — replicas: 1 |
| helm-chart/templates/database.yaml | helm-chart/templates/database.yaml — replicas: 1 |
| helm-chart/templates/rabbitmq.yaml | helm-chart/templates/rabbitmq.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
12 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 6,001 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 35 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 A roadmap file is in the tree (ROADMAP.md, last changed April 2025). A file is not a plan. Does it match the roadmap in the data room, and has the team delivered the last one it wrote?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- measured Infrastructure code (ephemeral_environment/terraform/eks/main.tf and 14 more) last changed 16 months before the newest commit, while 659 commits landed. Is the infrastructure now changed by hand? Compare the live account with the code.
- 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 Elixir codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Elixir in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in front/, ee/, public-api/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (artifacthub/Dockerfile and 350 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/semaphoreio/semaphore/a5b3f7f)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 — 85 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 85 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 — 55
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 12,984 · top5 share 0.006 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 167 · per kloc 0.14 · lines read 1,192,863 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.093 · early test per code 0.567 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.282 · early delete per insert 0.029 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 345 · share 0.426 · with tests 147 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.009 · code files 4,263 · compat files 38 |
| 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 152 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 5 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 14 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 1.8 · window last 24 months · authors 35 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 35 · active 12mo 24 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | a healthy share of contributors committed more than onceshare 0.286 · authors 35 · one commit authors 10 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 35 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 35 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 5 · joined 6 · regular last year 15 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 3 · window last 24 months · with tracked 9 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,719 · source 5,805 · test ratio 0.296 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 32 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 868 · low content share 0.002 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 2 · test files 2,014 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 2 · recent commits 866 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 13 · commits since 2 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 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 1 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 18.38 · repeat share 0.003 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 170 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | JavaScript to TypeScript: the new language's share has not risen steadily, so the two are deliberate layers, not a migrationmigration JavaScript to TypeScript · new share now 0.561 · new share at start 0.559 |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 150 · irreversible 0 |
| 05.resource_limits | every workload declares limitsworkloads 80 · 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.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 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.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 74 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 372 · added in two years 372 · removed within 60 days 7 |
| 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 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 3.5 · days since last tag -1 · commits last 90 days 167 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 30
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, stay |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.correlation_ids | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.environment_branching | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | no CI configuration to read |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no CI configuration to read |
| 02.lint_in_build | too small, or no CI to wire a linter into (02.2) |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | no CI actions or pipe-to-shell installs to check |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Elixir, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 28 records name semaphore with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2023-28609, CVE-2023-39059, CVE-2023-53845, …) |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; NVD: 28 records name semaphore with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2023-28609, CVE-2023-39059, CVE-2023-53845, …) |
| 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 VD5W-ZC8K-BPY1 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/VD5WZC8KBPY1?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: 142.1authenticated: False |
| 9.1s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 13.2s | read the git history | commits: 871tracked files: 10738 |
| 174.7s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 174.7s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 288.1s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 288.1s | deleting the working copy |
Total 288.1s ·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).