abe80d3 · 13,601 commits · 4,540 files
Issued 2026-09-26
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity, Security & Reliability Posture.
93 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 2 findings are worth checking first. 8 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
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.
- 2 findings rated significant by a check that has not yet held up in Borehole's calibration are now worth checking first.
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 3% 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 · adequate · ratings ↑ts/sql/Server.node.ts is 9,826 lines, 122× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 80 lines. 62 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 9,826. 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.
| line-count | ts/sql/Server.node.ts:1 — 9,826 lines (122× median) |
| line-count | ts/groups.preload.ts:1 — 7,645 lines (95× median) |
| line-count | ts/state/ducks/conversations.preload.ts:1 — 7,556 lines (94× median) |
| line-count | ts/models/conversations.preload.ts:1 — 6,250 lines (78× median) |
| line-count | ts/textsecure/WebAPI.preload.ts:1 — 5,364 lines (67× 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 ↑Change lands on the trunk with no trace of review
adequate worth checking firstIn the last 24 months, 32 of 2,600 commits (1.2%) carry any trace of review: a merge, a pull-request reference, a Reviewed-by or Reviewed-on trailer, a Closes/Fixes reference, or a maintainer's sign-off on someone else's change. Every common review workflow leaves at least one of those, so either review happens somewhere this history cannot see, or it is not happening. A buyer should establish which before relying on the review story they are told.
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. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| reviewable-arrivals | 32 of 2,600 commits in the last 24 months carry review evidence; 5.7% across all 13,601 commits read |
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.
Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase
adequate worth checking first3 test files against 2,904 source files (0.1%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.
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. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| test-file-ratio | 3 test files / 2,904 source 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.
8 committed .only switches other tests off
adequate8 test files commit a focused `.only`, which runs that test and silently skips the rest of its suite. 8 skip markers across 2 of 837 test files. Each is a failure somebody chose to stop seeing; the question is whether anyone is tracking them.
| .oxlint/rules/noDisabledTests.test.mjs | .oxlint/rules/noDisabledTests.test.mjs:14 — committed .only: other tests do not run |
| .oxlint/rules/noDisabledTests.test.mjs | .oxlint/rules/noDisabledTests.test.mjs:15 — committed .only: other tests do not run |
| .oxlint/rules/noDisabledTests.test.mjs | .oxlint/rules/noDisabledTests.test.mjs:17 — skipped test |
| .oxlint/rules/noDisabledTests.test.mjs | .oxlint/rules/noDisabledTests.test.mjs:18 — skipped test |
| .oxlint/rules/noDisabledTests.test.mjs | .oxlint/rules/noDisabledTests.test.mjs:22 — skipped test |
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% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate142 of 2263 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 | 142 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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: this repository belongs to a person rather than an organisation, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone the address 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. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑1 Dockerfile runs 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 | reproducible-builds/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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate4 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; 1 step pipes a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
| .github/workflows/backport.yml | .github/workflows/backport.yml:18 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/commits.yml | .github/workflows/commits.yml:16 — action pinned by tag |
| reproducible-builds/Dockerfile | reproducible-builds/Dockerfile:43 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
30 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 16 high or critical
adequate30 of 2,336 locked dependencies match 61 published advisories in OSV, 16 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.
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — @remix-run/router 1.5.0: GHSA-2w69-qvjg-hvjx (high), fixed in 1.23.2 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — app-builder-lib 26.11.1: GHSA-7g7r-gx96-252g (high), fixed in 26.15.0 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — axios 1.16.1: GHSA-gcfj-64vw-6mp9 (high), fixed in 1.18.0 |
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.
Observability & Operations
06 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 15 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
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 No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 3,523 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 coverageNot rated: this repository belongs to a person rather than an organisation, so a finding about one contributor would be about someone the address names; the public report does not carry those, and does not rate this dimension without them.
- 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- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 05.5 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.
- 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- 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 TypeScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in _locales/, ts/, stylesheets/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (reproducible-builds/Dockerfile). 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/signalapp/signal-desktop/abe80d3)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 files, in the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026)files 17,347 · top5 share 0.047 · history read the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 193 · per kloc 0.17 · lines read 1,147,933 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026) · late test per code 0.079 · early test per code 0.13 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026) · late delete per insert 0.751 · early delete per insert 0.659 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 459 · share 0.22 · with tests 101 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 3,589 |
| 06.structured_logging | not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical paths |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 0 · joined 2 · regular last year 12 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 11 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026)sampled 13,429 · history read the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026) · low content share 0.012 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 11 · with tests 4 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 11 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 9 · recent commits 2,579 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 7 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 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 6 · ci configs 11 · product files 2,088 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition threshold, in the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026)gap seconds 180 · history read the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026) · min add ratio 3.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026) · length stdev 16.01 · repeat share 0.057 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0036 · product files 2,078 · distinct blocks 305,397 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,151,492 · files 1 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 1 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 7 · files read 3,589 |
| 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_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 142 · irreversible 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 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0 |
| 05.unsafe_html | raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 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_copyleft_inherited | the project is itself AGPL-3.0, so copyleft components carry no obligation it has not already acceptedown license AGPL-3.0 · copyleft components 5 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on AGPL-3.0license AGPL-3.0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 264 · added in two years 77 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
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 |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026) were read |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 13,601 commits (10 Jan 2014 to 23 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 4PZ8-3EXV-3VVE at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 94 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/4PZ83EXV3VVE?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-26 · shown | borehole 0.6.2 | 9 | adequate |
15 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 8 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 8 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 8 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 8 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.5 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.4 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 8 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 9 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 18 | 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 — 8 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: 1171.5authenticated: False |
| 67.5s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: 20,000 commits |
| 128.8s | read the git history | commits: 13601tracked files: 4540 |
| 355.7s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 355.7s | withheld findings about one contributor: the owner is not known to be an organisation | withheld: 0 |
| 355.7s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 506.3s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 506.3s | deleting the working copy |
Total 506.3s ·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).