40a3b87 · 6,456 commits · 845 files
Issued 2026-09-27
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity, Security & Reliability Posture.
102 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 5 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions CONTRIBUTING.md:27
- 1 submodule(s) this survey does not read: okhttp-hpacktests/src/test/resources/hpack-test-case .gitmodules:1
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
- The file and line of 3 credential-shaped matches are withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 25% 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 843 of 844 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑okhttp/src/commonJvmAndroid/kotlin/okhttp3/HttpUrl.kt is 1,817 lines, 19× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 93 lines. 5 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 1,817. 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 | okhttp/src/commonJvmAndroid/kotlin/okhttp3/HttpUrl.kt:1 — 1,817 lines (19× median) |
| line-count | okhttp/src/commonJvmAndroid/kotlin/okhttp3/OkHttpClient.kt:1 — 1,398 lines (15× median) |
| line-count | mockwebserver/src/main/kotlin/mockwebserver3/MockWebServer.kt:1 — 1,300 lines (13× median) |
| line-count | okhttp/src/commonJvmAndroid/kotlin/okhttp3/internal/cache/DiskLruCache.kt:1 — 1,122 lines (12× median) |
| line-count | okhttp/src/commonJvmAndroid/kotlin/okhttp3/internal/http2/Http2Connection.kt:1 — 1,047 lines (11× 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 ↑67 tests are switched off
adequate67 skip markers across 23 of 275 test files. Each is a failure somebody chose to stop seeing; the question is whether anyone is tracking them.
| android-test/src/androidTest/java/okhttp/android/test/OkHttpTest.kt | android-test/src/androidTest/java/okhttp/android/test/OkHttpTest.kt:479 — skipped test |
| android-test/src/androidTest/java/okhttp/android/test/OkHttpTest.kt | android-test/src/androidTest/java/okhttp/android/test/OkHttpTest.kt:506 — skipped test |
| android-test/src/androidTest/java/okhttp/android/test/OkHttpTest.kt | android-test/src/androidTest/java/okhttp/android/test/OkHttpTest.kt:928 — 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.
Pinned dependencies have not moved in 38 months
adequateThe lockfile last changed 1152 days before the newest commit, and 1,033 commits have landed since. Every security fix published upstream in that time is absent until someone updates it, and the longer the gap the larger and riskier that update becomes.
| git log -1 -- kotlin-js-store/yarn.lock | kotlin-js-store/yarn.lock last changed 2023-07-22 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑3 credential-shaped strings in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings
adequateStrings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key.
| Slack token | Slack token, where fakes are usual |
| Google API key | Google API key, where fakes are usual |
| private key block | private key block, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
27 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 36 high or critical
adequate27 of 288 locked dependencies match 67 published advisories in OSV, 36 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.
| kotlin-js-store/yarn.lock | kotlin-js-store/yarn.lock — body-parser 1.20.0: GHSA-qwcr-r2fm-qrc7 (high), fixed in 1.20.3 |
| kotlin-js-store/yarn.lock | kotlin-js-store/yarn.lock — brace-expansion 1.1.11: GHSA-3jxr-9vmj-r5cp (high), fixed in 1.1.16 |
| kotlin-js-store/yarn.lock | kotlin-js-store/yarn.lock — brace-expansion 2.0.1: GHSA-3jxr-9vmj-r5cp (high), fixed in 2.1.2 |
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 4 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
4 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 437 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured One contributor authored a quarter or more of the commits in this history. Is that person 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 05.1 and 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 coverageNot rated: only 4 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 Kotlin codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Kotlin in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in okhttp/, mockwebserver/, okhttp-testing-support/. 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/square/okhttp/40a3b87)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 — 97 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 97 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 — 62
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 5,500 · top5 share 0.057 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 214 · per kloc 1.34 · lines read 159,558 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 1.289 · early test per code 0.891 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.8 · early delete per insert 0.669 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 50 · share 0.54 · with tests 27 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 357 · compat files 0 |
| 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 796 |
| 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 monthsyears 15.3 · window last 24 months · authors 339 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 339 · active 12mo 25 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 339 · directories 20 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 339 · one off share 0.72 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 339 · top share a quarter or more · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 37 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 8 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 4 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 254 · source 610 · test ratio 0.416 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 142 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 4,557 · low content share 0.005 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 4 · with tests 2 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 4 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.01 · reverts 4 · recent commits 381 |
| 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 3 · ci configs 4 · product files 357 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.006 · commits 341 · over 2000 lines 2 |
| 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 0 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 18.8 · repeat share 0.027 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 387 · write once share 0.256 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0062 · product files 357 · distinct blocks 31,238 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 160,350 · files 8 · per kloc 0.09 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 46 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 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.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | plain HTTP is not allowed app-widesites 0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 2 · files with deprecations 70 |
| 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 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 10.0 · days since last tag 31 · commits last 90 days 162 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 59 · on branch 83 · tags in window 142 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_advisories | no published advisory affects the surveyed versionaffecting 0 · exploited 0 · advisories 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 35
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.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 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 | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 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.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 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.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 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.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 days |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter KY4X-4AT0-RH72 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/KY4X4AT0RH72?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-27 · shown | borehole 0.7.2 | 6 | adequate |
15 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 6 | strong |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.4 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 7 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 9 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 9 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 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 | authenticated: False |
| 8.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 12.4s | read the git history | commits: 6456tracked files: 845 |
| 92.2s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 92.2s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 112.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 112.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 112.0s ·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).