b5d4562 · 3,993 commits · 9,829 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 4 raised something worth a question. 13 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.61 Part of the code is under a separate licence: ee/ ee/LICENSE
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 84% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑db/structure.sql is 6,102 lines, 54× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 111 lines. 44 files exceed 1,110 lines, the largest being 6,102. 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 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | db/structure.sql:1 — 6,102 lines (54× median) |
| line-count | web_src/src/pages/app/index.tsx:1 — 3,947 lines (35× median) |
| line-count | web_src/src/ui/CanvasPage/index.tsx:1 — 3,735 lines (33× median) |
| line-count | pkg/integrations/digitalocean/client.go:1 — 3,377 lines (30× median) |
| line-count | pkg/integrations/aws/ec2/client.go:1 — 3,147 lines (28× 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 ↑13% of recent commits change more than 2,000 lines
adequate411 of 3166 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 | 411 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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑85 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequateweb_src/package.json declares 85 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.
| direct-dependencies | web_src/package.json — 85 declared |
| direct-dependencies | go.mod — 72 declared |
| direct-dependencies | forge/bitbucket/package.json — 4 declared |
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 ↑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 9,829 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.
1 Dockerfile runs the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
| no-USER-instruction | release/fleet-manager/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 production build publishes source maps
adequateThe build configuration emits source maps for production, so the original source, with its comments and structure, is downloadable by every visitor. Upload them to an error tracker and keep them off the public server instead.
| web_src/vite.config.ts | web_src/vite.config.ts:110 — source maps in a production build |
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.
Part of the code is under a separate licence: ee/
adequateA directory named for a paid edition carries its own licence. That code is usually not open source even where the rest is; what the buyer may do with each part differs.
| ee/LICENSE | ee/LICENSE — licence: 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.
3 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate3 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| pkg/agents/anthropic/client.go | pkg/agents/anthropic/client.go:59 — outbound call without a timeout |
| pkg/cli/upgrade.go | pkg/cli/upgrade.go:325 — outbound call without a timeout |
| pkg/integrations/slack/client.go | pkg/integrations/slack/client.go:179 — outbound call without a timeout |
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.
3 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 1 high or critical
adequate3 of 1,021 locked dependencies match 4 published advisories in OSV, 1 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| Gemfile.lock | Gemfile.lock — rubyzip 2.4.1: GHSA-47m2-wp7j-p9vc (high), fixed in 3.4.0 |
| go.mod | go.mod — github.com/go-chi/chi/v5 v5.2.4: GHSA-j6qf-3m9c-vwj3 (moderate), fixed in 5.4.0 |
| go.mod | go.mod — golang.org/x/crypto v0.55.0: GO-2026-6354 (unrated), fixed in 0.56.0 |
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.
2 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 1 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-07-28. 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| CVE-2026-57510 | 2026-07-28: CVE-2026-57510 (high): SuperPlane before 0.27.0 contains a broken object-level authorization vulnerability in the CanvasService gRPC handlers that allows authenticated users with view |
| CVE-2026-57511 | 2026-07-28: CVE-2026-57511 (moderate): SuperPlane before 0.30.0 contains an SMTP header injection vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary SMTP headers by including CRL |
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 ↑Readiness and liveness probes are identical in 3 of 3 workloads
adequateBoth probes call the same endpoint. When a dependency slows down, the liveness probe fails with the readiness probe, so the platform restarts pods that only needed taking out of rotation, and a partial outage becomes a full one. Liveness should ask whether the process is alive; readiness whether it can serve.
| release/superplane-helm-chart/helm/templates/api.yaml | release/superplane-helm-chart/helm/templates/api.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| release/superplane-helm-chart/helm/templates/runner-api.yaml | release/superplane-helm-chart/helm/templates/runner-api.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
| release/superplane-helm-chart/helm/templates/websocket.yaml | release/superplane-helm-chart/helm/templates/websocket.yaml — same probe endpoint twice |
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.
3 of 8 deployments run a single replica
adequate3 deployments set `replicas: 1`, and nothing (an autoscaler, a disruption budget) adds more. Every deploy and every node drain is downtime, and the availability the buyer inherits has a ceiling.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| release/fleet-manager-chart/helm/templates/deployment.yaml | release/fleet-manager-chart/helm/templates/deployment.yaml — replicas: 1 |
| release/superplane-helm-chart/helm/templates/database.yaml | release/superplane-helm-chart/helm/templates/database.yaml — replicas: 1 |
| release/superplane-helm-chart/helm/templates/rabbitmq.yaml | release/superplane-helm-chart/helm/templates/rabbitmq.yaml — replicas: 1 |
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 code branches on the environment's name at 14 places
adequate14 places outside configuration test whether they are running in production or staging. Staging then does not exercise production's code, and each deploy is the first run of those branches. Differences belong in configuration the code reads, not in the code.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| pkg/web/asset_handler.go | pkg/web/asset_handler.go:35 — branch on the environment name |
| web_src/src/pages/factories/pages/organizationSettings/spending-redesign/useSpendingRedesignPageModel.ts | web_src/src/pages/factories/pages/organizationSettings/spending-redesign/useSpendingRedesignPageModel.ts:54 — branch on the environment name |
| web_src/src/pages/factories/pages/organizationSettings/spending-redesign/useSpendingRedesignPageModel.ts | web_src/src/pages/factories/pages/organizationSettings/spending-redesign/useSpendingRedesignPageModel.ts:57 — branch on the environment name |
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
7 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 The tree carries design documentation (docs/contributing/architecture.md). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- 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 71 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 Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (db/migrations/20260917100300_restore-unique-github-signin-identity.down.sql). Has a restore ever been rehearsed, and how long did it take?
- 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 Go alongside (43% 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 pkg/, web_src/, release/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 33% of lines added in the last 12 months (29% of added lines) came through AI-declared commits. Does your organisation have a policy on inheriting and maintaining that code, and does your engineering team's tooling match how it was produced?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 48 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/superplanehq/superplane/b5d4562)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 — 91 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 91 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 — 71
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 17,126 · top5 share 0.023 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 28 · per kloc 0.02 · lines read 1,584,784 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.561 · early test per code 0.241 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.392 · early delete per insert 0.567 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,175 · share 0.598 · with tests 703 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 10 · columns added last year 168 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 5,627 · 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 228 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 441 |
| 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 94 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 6 · config files 0 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 1 · settings off 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 103 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 16 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 1.5 · window last 24 months · authors 71 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 71 · active 12mo 70 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 71 · directories 7 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 71 · one off share 0.549 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 71 · 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 71 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 1 · joined 24 · regular last year 28 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 4 · window last 24 months · with tracked 450 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 1 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,998 · source 8,590 · test ratio 0.349 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 103 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 3,989 · low content share 0.001 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 2,996 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 1 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 8 · recent commits 3,369 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 5 · commits since 27 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 2 · ci configs 1 · product files 5,627 |
| 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 1 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 14.27 · repeat share 0.0 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 6,294 · write once share 0.446 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0188 · product files 5,617 · distinct blocks 673,514 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,594,219 · files 2 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 15 |
| 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 9,527 |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 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.resource_limits | every workload declares limitsworkloads 8 · without limits 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.unsafe_html | raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 3 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 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 |
| 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 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 1,315 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 0 · on branch 88 · tags in window 88 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 20
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 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.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | no CI actions or pipe-to-shell installs to check |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 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 | the history scanned covers 15 months, less than the 18 this question needs |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | the history scanned covers 15 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.dependency_churn | the history scanned covers 15 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | the history scanned covers 15 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV Go github.com/superplanehq/superplane (an empty record for a package published here), OSV npm @superplane/cli (an empty record for a package published here) did not |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited list |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter BKTJ-NKSB-F94K 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/BKTJNKSBF94K?via=badge)
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 | size mb: 529.5authenticated: False |
| 28.0s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 38.6s | read the git history | commits: 3993tracked files: 9829 |
| 401.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 401.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 675.6s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 675.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 675.6s ·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).