e9c026c · 257 commits · 19 files
Issued 2026-09-24
Reads strong: 3 of 5 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
42 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity and Security & Reliability Posture are adequate. 2 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 1 finding about one contributor is withheld: this repository belongs to a person.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 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 |
- 5% 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 19 of 19 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 6 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · adequate · ratings ↑32% of commit subjects say nothing about the change
adequate83 of 257 subjects are either under twelve characters or one of the standard placeholders — wip, fix, update. The history is therefore not usable for reconstructing why a decision was taken, which is the main thing an inheriting engineer needs it for. It says nothing about code quality and a great deal about how much context transfers with the asset.
| commit-subject-content | 83/257 low-content subjects (32.3%) |
| example | 'Init' |
| example | '0.1.0' |
| example | 'Clean up #4' |
| example | '0.2.0' |
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.
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. 6 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑12 dependencies float, and no lockfile is committed
adequateDependency versions are declared as ranges and no lockfile is committed, so a build today does not necessarily produce what a build last month produced. That matters twice over in a transaction: the thing being bought cannot be reproduced exactly, and a compromised upstream release arrives without anyone choosing to take it.
| unpinned | package.json — node >=22 |
| unpinned | package.json — @sindresorhus/tsconfig ^8.1.0 |
| unpinned | package.json — @types/jsdom ^28.0.1 |
| unpinned | package.json — @types/node ^25.5.2 |
| unpinned | package.json — @types/zen-observable ^0.8.7 |
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. 3 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
1 check 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.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Incident response practice is not visible in a repository.
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.
- Hiring pipeline, bench depth and retention are not visible in a repository.
- Whether the dominant contributor is part of the transaction.
- Seniority, levelling and who actually mentors whom.
- Whether the team wants to stay after the deal closes.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Roadmap credibility requires the data room.
- Whether technical debt is acknowledged and funded.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- Incident history and failure-mode analysis are not in the repository.
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- Whether anyone watches the telemetry that exists.
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?
- One contributor authored 62% of this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- The bulk of this system sits in test/, source/, test.js => source/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
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/sindresorhus/is/e9c026c)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 — 40 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 40 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 — 24
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 5 · per kloc 0.77 · lines read 6,535 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.195 · early test per code 0.526 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.507 · early delete per insert 0.449 |
| 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 |
| 03.active_contributors | 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 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window all history · with tracked 20 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 1 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 63 |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 1 · with tests 1 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 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 678 · share of insertions 0.0539 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 20.31 · repeat share 0.086 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 28 · write once share 0.286 |
| 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 13 |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 7 · truncated False · added lines 10,859 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 2 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 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 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 16
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | too little change history to locate hotspots |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 06.telemetry_presence | too few readable files to judge instrumentation |
| 06.structured_logging | too few readable files to judge logging |
| 03.knowledge_silos | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.test_presence | too few source files to judge test proportion |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | repository too small to expect process scaffolding |
| 02.skipped_tests | too few test files to judge how many are switched off |
| 02.revert_share | too few recent commits to judge how often change is undone |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | no lockfile to date |
| 01.oversized_modules | too few source files to establish a norm to compare against |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | too few source files to look for duplication across them |
| 05.security_guardrails | repository too small to expect guard rails |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 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 |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 6ATT-E34K-9PCH at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 43 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/6ATTE34K9PCH?via=badge)
9 pieces of evidence on this report quote the repository directly. Four checks quote text: up to five TODO-style comments, up to four commit subjects, up to five unpinned dependency lines and one status line from the README's first screen, such as “no longer maintained”. In each case the text is the evidence, which is why it is kept by default.
This rewrites every stored reading of this repository, and every later reading, including a re-read, is stored without the quoted text. The facts we keep to re-read it still hold the lines, as the privacy notice says. The pointers stay.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-24 · shown | borehole 0.4.0.dev1 | 3 | strong |
20 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.4 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 2 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 2 | strong |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 2 | strong |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 3 | strong |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.0 | 3 | strong |
| 2026-09-24 | borehole 0.4.0 | 3 | strong |
| 2026-09-24 | borehole 0.4.0.dev2 | 3 | strong |
| 2026-09-23 | borehole 0.1.0.dev0 | 4 | strong |
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 — 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 0.4s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 1.2authenticated: False |
| 1.5s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 1.6s | read the git history | commits: 257tracked files: 19 |
| 1.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 1.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 1.9s | deleting the working copy |
Total 1.9s ·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).