2c72378 · 32,504 commits · 2,225 files
Issued 2026-09-28
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance. People was not rated.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 2 raised something worth a question. 4 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 25 September 2026.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | not assessable | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 100% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- deep scan blamed 2,225 of 2,225 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑autosetup/jimsh0.c is 25,495 lines, 85× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 298 lines. 36 files exceed 2,980 lines, the largest being 25,495. 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 | autosetup/jimsh0.c:1 — 25,495 lines (85× median) |
| line-count | ext/wasm/libcmpp.c:1 — 18,549 lines (62× median) |
| line-count | src/btree.c:1 — 11,659 lines (39× median) |
| line-count | ext/fts5/fts5_index.c:1 — 9,591 lines (32× median) |
| line-count | src/vdbe.c:1 — 9,577 lines (32× 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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 9 of 19 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑None of the standard security guard rails are configured
adequateThere is no disclosure policy, no automated dependency updates, no named code owners and no pre-commit configuration. None of these is load-bearing on its own. Their collective absence says that security posture here is whatever the current team happens to remember to do, which is not a posture that survives the team changing.
| guardrail-scan | checked 5 kinds of guard rail across 2,225 tracked files; 0 present |
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.
Licence text does not match a standard licence
adequateLICENSE.md exists but its text does not match any standard licence. A bespoke or hand-edited licence is not wrong, but it cannot be cleared by recognising its name: counsel has to read it, and until they do neither side knows precisely what rights transfer with the code.
| LICENSE.md | LICENSE.md:1 — 85 lines, 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.
9 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 5 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-06-09. 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 9 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
| CVE-2026-11822 | 2026-06-09: CVE-2026-11822 (high): SQLite before 3.53.2 contains memory corruption vulnerabilities in the FTS5 full-text search extension that allow attackers to cause process crashes, memory exh |
| CVE-2026-11824 | 2026-06-09: CVE-2026-11824 (high): SQLite before 3.53.2 contains a heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the FTS5 full-text search extension that allows attackers to cause a crash or execut |
| CVE-2025-70873 | 2026-03-12: CVE-2025-70873 (high): An information disclosure issue in the zipfileInflate function in the zipfile extension in SQLite v3.51.1 and earlier allows attackers to obtain heap memory via |
| CVE-2025-7458 | 2025-07-29: CVE-2025-7458 (moderate): An integer overflow in the sqlite3KeyInfoFromExprList function in SQLite versions 3.39.2 through 3.41.1 allows an attacker with the ability to execute arbitrary |
| CVE-2025-6965 | 2025-07-15: CVE-2025-6965 (high): There exists a vulnerability in SQLite versions before 3.50.2 where the number of aggregate terms could exceed the number of columns available. This could lead |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 3 of 15 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
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.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 653 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 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 coverageNot rated: only 9 of 19 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- 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- 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 coverageNot rated: only 3 of 15 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- 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 C codebase, with Java alongside (15% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run C in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in src/, ext/, autosetup/. 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?
- 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/sqlite/sqlite/2c72378)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 — 99 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 99 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 — 46
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 3,182 · top5 share 0.13 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 140 · per kloc 0.25 · lines read 549,900 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.084 · early test per code 0.016 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.616 · early delete per insert 0.581 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,105 · share 0.333 · with tests 368 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 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 667 |
| 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.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.critical_path_ownership | 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.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 135 · source 506 · test ratio 0.267 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 390 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 30,137 · low content share 0.0 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 1,456 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 3,525 |
| 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 0.038 · merges 208 · long lived 8 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.003 · commits 3,291 · over 2000 lines 11 |
| 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 9 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 64.64 · repeat share 0.018 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 631 · write once share 0.097 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0055 · product files 418 · distinct blocks 278,188 |
| 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 8 · files read 667 |
| 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.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_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 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 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 24.0 · days since last tag 44 · commits last 90 days 427 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 111 · on branch 279 · tags in window 390 |
| 03.single_maintainer | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 53
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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.joiners_and_leavers | withheld: this check's result would describe one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | not observable from this history: it mirrors a Fossil repository, where review happens outside git |
| 02.ci_presence | not observable from this history: it mirrors a Fossil repository, whose process runs outside git |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | not observable from this history: it mirrors a Fossil repository, whose process runs outside git |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | no CI configuration to read |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no CI configuration to read |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | no lockfile to date |
| 02.lint_in_build | too small, or no CI to wire a linter into (02.2) |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.dependency_pinning | no manifest whose pinning can be read without a lockfile |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was added outside test and fixture paths in the 20,000 most recent commits scanned; older history was not read |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | no CI actions or pipe-to-shell installs to check |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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 |
| 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 | not a running service |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 days |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 66 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version could not be placed |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter VZZD-6NFZ-3KTS at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 103 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/VZZD6NFZ3KTS?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-28 · shown | borehole 0.7.5 | 4 | adequate |
16 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-25 | borehole 0.7.15 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 5 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 5 | 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 | authenticated: False |
| 110.5s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 188.6s | read the git history | commits: 32504tracked files: 2225 |
| 1378.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 1378.9s | withheld findings about one contributor: the owner is a person | withheld: 2owner kind: person |
| 1378.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 1465.6s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 1465.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 1465.6s ·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).