b08fbe5 · 6,233 commits · 8,293 files
Issued 2026-10-01
MIT since 2024-09-02: open source; use, change and redistribution need only attribution.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 17 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.60 MIT since 2024-09-02: open source; use, change and redistribution need only attribution
- 05.60 Relicensed: Apache-2.0 → GPL-3.0 (2023-05-20) → MIT (2024-09-02) LICENSE
- 05.61 5 files are named as enterprise-edition code app/proprietary/src/main/java/stirling/software/proprietary/security/configuration/ee/DatabaseLicenseGuard.java
- names OpenSSF README.md:17
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.
- 05.26 27 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 7 high or critical in what ships
- 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 from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 33% 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 · strong · ratings ↑app/core/src/main/java/stirling/software/SPDF/service/PdfJsonConversionService.java is 6,959 lines, 79× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 88 lines. 44 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 6,959. 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 305 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | app/core/src/main/java/stirling/software/SPDF/service/PdfJsonConversionService.java:1 — 6,959 lines (79× median) |
| line-count | app/common/src/main/java/stirling/software/common/util/FormUtils.java:1 — 4,107 lines (46× median) |
| line-count | app/core/src/main/java/stirling/software/SPDF/controller/api/converters/ConvertPDFToPDFA.java:1 — 2,714 lines (30× median) |
| line-count | frontend/editor/src/core/components/filesPage/FileGrid.tsx:1 — 2,409 lines (27× median) |
| line-count | frontend/editor/src/core/services/pdfiumService.ts:1 — 2,220 lines (25× 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 ↑Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (frontend/editor/playwright.config.ts). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
| frontend/editor/playwright.config.ts | frontend/editor/playwright.config.ts:51 — test retry |
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.
11% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate284 of 2590 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 | 284 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 · adequate · ratings ↑Regular contributors fell from 33 to 12 in a year
adequate20 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 2 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.
| regular contributors by year | 33 then 12; 20 stopped committing, 2 began |
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.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑Node.js 25 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 25 (end of life 2026-06-01). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2026-06-01. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| docker/frontend/Dockerfile | docker/frontend/Dockerfile — Node.js 25, end of life 2026-06-01 |
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.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑4 Dockerfiles run 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 | docker/backend/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/base/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/embedded/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/frontend/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
adequate1 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.
| docker/embedded/Dockerfile | docker/embedded/Dockerfile:15 — 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.
27 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 7 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first27 of 1,367 locked dependencies match 51 published advisories in OSV, 19 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.
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. Opening frontend/package-lock.json and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| frontend/package-lock.json | frontend/package-lock.json — axios 1.18.1: GHSA-3pq3-5fj3-cg6v (high), fixed in 1.20.0 |
| frontend/package-lock.json | frontend/package-lock.json — react-router 7.18.1: GHSA-qwww-vcr4-c8h2 (high), fixed in 7.18.2; the advisory applies only under a condition it states |
| engine/uv.lock | engine/uv.lock — httpx2 2.10.0: GHSA-8xx6-hgc6-gc2m (high), fixed in 2.12.0; a development dependency |
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.
Relicensed: Apache-2.0 → GPL-3.0 (2023-05-20) → MIT (2024-09-02)
adequateThe root licence changed 2 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
| d70aec5da | LICENSE — Apache-2.0 from 2023-01-27 |
| 8e4cdb78a | LICENSE — GPL-3.0 from 2023-05-20 |
| da6b66e19 | LICENSE — MIT from 2024-09-02 |
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.
5 files are named as enterprise-edition code
adequateFiles named `.ee.` are, by the common open-core convention, the paid edition's code, usually under a licence that is not open source even where the rest is. What the buyer may do with each part differs.
| app/proprietary/src/main/java/stirling/software/proprietary/security/configuration/ee/DatabaseLicenseGuard.java | app/proprietary/src/main/java/stirling/software/proprietary/security/configuration/ee/DatabaseLicenseGuard.java — enterprise-edition file |
| app/proprietary/src/main/java/stirling/software/proprietary/security/configuration/ee/DynamicLicenseService.java | app/proprietary/src/main/java/stirling/software/proprietary/security/configuration/ee/DynamicLicenseService.java — enterprise-edition file |
| app/proprietary/src/main/java/stirling/software/proprietary/security/configuration/ee/EEAppConfig.java | app/proprietary/src/main/java/stirling/software/proprietary/security/configuration/ee/EEAppConfig.java — enterprise-edition file |
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.
12 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 7 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-07-30. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed version.
| GHSA-3xxh-mm3g-c9w5 | 2026-07-30: GHSA-3xxh-mm3g-c9w5 (high), fixed in 2.9.0: Internal Service Account API Key Disclosure via Pipeline Endpoint |
| GHSA-qc47-qgh9-xj63 | 2026-07-30: GHSA-qc47-qgh9-xj63 (high), fixed in 2.0.0: Stored XSS in Stirling PDF Info Summary |
| GHSA-rjjx-43g5-mp76 | 2026-05-23: GHSA-rjjx-43g5-mp76 (low), fixed in 2.0.0: Reflected XSS through crafted PDF metadata fields (Title and Author) |
| GHSA-q5j3-4m5w-wp75 | 2026-04-17: GHSA-q5j3-4m5w-wp75 (low), fixed in 2.0.0: Reflected XSS through crafted filename in file upload functionality |
| GHSA-xmhg-fv84-jgfc | 2026-03-25: GHSA-xmhg-fv84-jgfc (moderate), fixed in 2.8.0: Stored Cross Site Scripting (XSS) via EML-to-HTML Export |
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 environment files are committed
adequate.env, app/.env.proprietary, app/.env.saas and more are tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .env | .env — committed environment file |
| app/.env.proprietary | app/.env.proprietary — committed environment file |
| app/.env.saas | app/.env.saas — committed environment file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
4 SQL statements built from strings
adequate4 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 2 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| engine/src/stirling/documents/sqlite_vec_store.py | engine/src/stirling/documents/sqlite_vec_store.py:329 — SQL built from a string |
| engine/src/stirling/documents/sqlite_vec_store.py | engine/src/stirling/documents/sqlite_vec_store.py:340 — SQL built from a string |
| engine/src/stirling/documents/sqlite_vec_store.py | engine/src/stirling/documents/sqlite_vec_store.py:336 — SQL built from a string |
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.
29 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate29 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .claude/skills/ui-before-after/montage-template.html | .claude/skills/ui-before-after/montage-template.html:69 — HTML from a variable |
| .claude/skills/ui-walkthrough/report-template.html | .claude/skills/ui-walkthrough/report-template.html:256 — HTML from a variable |
| app/core/src/main/resources/static/mobile-upload.html | app/core/src/main/resources/static/mobile-upload.html:440 — HTML from a variable |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| logging-scan | searched 7,170 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 of 4 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate1 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| docker/embedded/compose/docker-compose-latest-security-remote-uno.yml | docker/embedded/compose/docker-compose-latest-security-remote-uno.yml:78 — image without a version |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
9 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 4,832 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 coverage- measured 302 people have committed here. 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 No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a TypeScript codebase, with Java alongside (41% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in frontend/, app/, engine/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker/backend/Dockerfile and 19 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/stirling-tools/stirling-pdf/b08fbe5)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 — 88 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 88 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 — 73
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 20,596 · top5 share 0.023 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 73 · per kloc 0.06 · lines read 1,304,843 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.606 · early delete per insert 0.28 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 660 · share 0.285 · with tests 188 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 3,620 · compat files 0 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 6 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 25 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 1 · settings off 3 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 51 · release commits 8 · changelog commits 5 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 3.7 · window last 24 months · authors 302 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 302 · active 12mo 57 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 302 · directories 6 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 302 · one off share 0.556 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 302 · 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 139 |
| 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 133 · window last 24 months · with tracked 105 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 43 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,486 · source 6,099 · test ratio 0.408 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 189 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 5,506 · low content share 0.042 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 43 · with tests 8 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 118 · test files 2,636 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 43 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 8 · recent commits 2,775 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 6 · commits since 0 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 11 · ci configs 43 · product files 3,620 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.023 · merges 86 · long lived 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 201 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 24.44 · repeat share 0.106 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 3,877 · write once share 0.465 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0113 · product files 3,502 · distinct blocks 348,251 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,311,983 · files 19 · per kloc 0.03 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 18 |
| 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 7,170 |
| 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.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 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 | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 29 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 28 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 28 · stated in headers or notices 2 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | the newer API version is recent; the old one may be on its way outmonths together 2 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 17 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 254 · added in two years 254 · removed within 60 days 20 |
| 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 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 6.0 · days since last tag -2 · commits last 90 days 808 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release, v3.0.2, was made after the surveyed commit on the branch surveyedelsewhere 3 · on branch 183 · tags in window 187 |
| 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 12 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 15
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | tests are kept inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for Java or TypeScript or TSX, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 0W7B-RVYW-TPQ2 at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 106 checks this run performed, the bands they produced, and the commit they were read at. It does not cover checks written since.
Put the mark in your README
The image is wrapped in a link to the verification page, so a reader can check it rather than take it on trust. If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
[](https://borehole.dev/verify/0W7BRVYWTPQ2?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-01 · shown | borehole 0.7.9 | 18 | adequate |
5 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 18 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 18 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 18 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 18 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 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 — 3 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 | re-read from the facts kept at the last survey; nothing was cloned | facts version: 9308f48b62c9dddf |
| 21.3s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 21.3s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
Total 21.3s ·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).