c697590 · 4,874 commits · 788 files
Issued 2026-11-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Observability & Operations. People was not rated.
101 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 1 raised something worth a question. 5 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 2 November 2026.
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- 2 findings about one contributor are withheld: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits; a buyer of this report reads them.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | strong | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 0% 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 788 of 788 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 11 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository
adequateOf five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: CI workflows. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| process-scaffolding | 1 of 5 markers present across 788 tracked files |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them. What a person adds here.
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 · strong · ratings ↑The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate5 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. 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/ci-docker-image-build.yml | .github/workflows/ci-docker-image-build.yml:10 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/ci.yml | .github/workflows/ci.yml:89 — action pinned by tag |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
4 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-16. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 4 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 5.1.8. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 1 record names shlink with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2026-50887).
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.
| CVE-2026-92760 | 2026-09-16: CVE-2026-92760 (high): Shlink through 5.1.6 fails to enforce API key role restrictions when issuing Mercure subscription tokens, allowing restricted keys to subscribe to all topics. A |
| CVE-2026-18736 | 2026-08-03: CVE-2026-18736 (moderate): Shlink contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability that allows authenticated API key holders to cause the server to issue arbitrary HTTP GET requests b |
| CVE-2026-18737 | 2026-08-03: CVE-2026-18737 (high): Shlink contains a blind SQL injection vulnerability that allows any authenticated API key holder to inject arbitrary SQL fragments by supplying an unvalidated d |
| CVE-2026-18738 | 2026-08-03: CVE-2026-18738 (moderate): Shlink versions 5.0.0 through 5.1.5 contain a CSV formula injection vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to plant spreadsheet formulas int |
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 telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere
adequateNone of 764 readable files references an instrumentation, metrics or error-reporting library. If this system is in production, nobody learns that it broke from the system itself — they learn it from a customer. That is a reliability finding before it is an observability one.
| telemetry-scan | searched 764 tracked text files for 16 known instrumentation libraries; manifests for metrics, tracing and error-reporting families; locked dependencies for the packages that emit; 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
6 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 (docs/adr/2021-01-17-support-restrictions-and-permissions-in-api-keys.md and 9 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 coverageNot rated: one author wrote nearly all of this repository's commits, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone its history all but names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them.
- Which of the people who wrote this are 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- 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 PHP codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run PHP in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in module/, config/, data/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 4 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/shlinkio/shlink/c697590)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 — 96 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 96 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 — 70
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 2,270 · top5 share 0.063 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 20 · per kloc 0.34 · lines read 59,267 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.096 · early test per code 0.801 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.776 · early delete per insert 0.635 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 54 · share 0.407 · with tests 22 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 413 · compat files 0 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 3 |
| 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 4 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 11 · floating 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 12 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 45 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.knowledge_silos | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 184 · window last 24 months · with tracked 1 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 7 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 254 · source 667 · test ratio 0.381 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 161 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 3,831 · low content share 0.008 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 255 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 7 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 426 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.026 · merges 155 · long lived 4 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.003 · commits 400 · over 2000 lines 1 |
| 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 23 · share of insertions 0.0001 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.39 · repeat share 0.128 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 459 · write once share 0.087 |
| 01.oversized_modules | no module is an outlier against this codebase's own normlargest 720 · threshold 1,000 · median lines 50 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0113 · product files 413 · distinct blocks 11,489 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 60,031 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 3 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture paths; the only other matches are expired or licence tokens or placeholders, which grant nothingnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 764 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture paths; the only other matches are expired or licence tokens or placeholders, which grant nothingpatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 141,615 |
| 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.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_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 1 · files with deprecations 80 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 148 · added in two years 9 · removed within 60 days 3 |
| 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 22.5 · days since last tag 12 · commits last 90 days 48 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 2 · on branch 159 · tags in window 161 |
| 03.single_maintainer | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 26
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for PHP: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | no lockfile to date |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.dependency_pinning | no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for PHP, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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_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_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 1 record names shlink with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2026-50887) |
| 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 APQP-1VW7-PP6Q 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/APQP1VW7PP6Q?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-11-03 · shown | borehole 0.7.15 | 10 | adequate |
1 other reading (show)
| 2026-11-08 | borehole 0.7.16 | 10 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 38.0authenticated: False |
| 3.9s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 6.9s | read the git history | commits: 4874tracked files: 788 |
| 59.3s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 59.3s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 71.8s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 71.8s | deleting the working copy |
Total 71.8s ·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).