5ef2238 · 2,812 commits · 8,267 files
Issued 2026-10-04
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 3 findings are worth checking first. 16 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
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.
- 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 | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 10% 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 ↑apps/nestjs-backend/src/features/space/space-data-db-migration.service.ts is 9,079 lines, 144× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 63 lines. 88 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 9,079. 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. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 85% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| line-count | apps/nestjs-backend/src/features/space/space-data-db-migration.service.ts:1 — 9,079 lines (144× median) |
| line-count | packages/v2/adapter-table-repository-postgres/src/record/repository/PostgresTableRecordRepository.ts:1 — 5,853 lines (92× median) |
| line-count | apps/nestjs-backend/src/features/record/open-api/record-open-api-v2.service.ts:1 — 4,896 lines (77× median) |
| line-count | packages/v2/adapter-table-repository-postgres/src/record/computed/outbox/ComputedUpdateOutbox.ts:1 — 4,630 lines (73× median) |
| line-count | packages/v2/adapter-table-repository-postgres/src/record/computed/ComputedFieldUpdater.ts:1 — 4,085 lines (64× 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 ↑1 committed .only switches other tests off
adequate1 test file commits a focused `.only`, which runs that test and silently skips the rest of its suite. 19 skip markers across 13 of 1877 test files. Each is a failure somebody chose to stop seeing; the question is whether anyone is tracking them.
| apps/nestjs-backend/test/aggregation.e2e-spec.ts | apps/nestjs-backend/test/aggregation.e2e-spec.ts:1411 — committed .only: other tests do not run |
| apps/nestjs-backend/test/aggregation-search.e2e-spec.ts | apps/nestjs-backend/test/aggregation-search.e2e-spec.ts:71 — skipped test |
| apps/nestjs-backend/test/computed-orchestrator.e2e-spec.ts | apps/nestjs-backend/test/computed-orchestrator.e2e-spec.ts:3171 — skipped test |
| apps/nestjs-backend/test/db-connection.e2e-spec.ts | apps/nestjs-backend/test/db-connection.e2e-spec.ts:11 — 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.
Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (apps/nextjs-app/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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| apps/nextjs-app/playwright.config.ts | apps/nextjs-app/playwright.config.ts:28 — 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.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑The bus factor fell from 3 to 1
adequateYear by year, newest first, the number of people who wrote half the changes was 1, 3, 2, 1. The team narrowed to one person, which is a different risk from one that always was: the code does not say why.
| bus factor by year | 1, 3, 2, 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.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑161 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequate worth checking firstapps/nestjs-backend/package.json declares 161 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.
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 apps/nestjs-backend/package.json and the 3 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| direct-dependencies | apps/nestjs-backend/package.json — 161 declared |
| direct-dependencies | apps/nextjs-app/package.json — 99 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/sdk/package.json — 89 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/ui-lib/package.json — 55 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.
2 jobs are each done by more than one library
adequateWithin a single package: HTTP clients: axios, node-fetch; dates: date-fns, dayjs. Each duplicate is bundle size, two ways of doing the same thing in one codebase, and two upgrade paths to maintain. It is usually the residue of a migration that stopped halfway.
| apps/nestjs-backend/package.json | apps/nestjs-backend/package.json — several libraries per job |
| apps/nextjs-app/package.json | apps/nextjs-app/package.json — several libraries per job |
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 ↑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 | dockers/teable/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.
40 SQL statements built from strings
adequate worth checking first40 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters, and in 12 of them a value, not a table or column name, goes into the string. Where any of those values comes from a request, it is an injection point. Each site needs a look; the fix, parameters, is small.
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 apps/nestjs-backend/src/db-provider/aggregation-query/postgres/multiple-value/multiple-value-aggregation.adapter.ts:12 settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| apps/nestjs-backend/src/db-provider/aggregation-query/postgres/multiple-value/multiple-value-aggregation.adapter.ts | apps/nestjs-backend/src/db-provider/aggregation-query/postgres/multiple-value/multiple-value-aggregation.adapter.ts:12 — SQL built from a string |
| apps/nestjs-backend/src/db-provider/aggregation-query/postgres/multiple-value/multiple-value-aggregation.adapter.ts | apps/nestjs-backend/src/db-provider/aggregation-query/postgres/multiple-value/multiple-value-aggregation.adapter.ts:21 — SQL built from a string |
| apps/nestjs-backend/src/db-provider/aggregation-query/postgres/multiple-value/multiple-value-aggregation.adapter.ts | apps/nestjs-backend/src/db-provider/aggregation-query/postgres/multiple-value/multiple-value-aggregation.adapter.ts:30 — 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.
104 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 67 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first104 of 4,261 locked dependencies match 197 published advisories in OSV, 96 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.
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 pnpm-lock.yaml settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — handlebars 4.7.8: GHSA-2w6w-674q-4c4q (critical), fixed in 4.7.9 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — i18next-fs-backend 2.6.0: GHSA-2933-q333-qg83 (critical), fixed in 2.6.6 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — next 16.1.6: GHSA-2xp9-vwfh-vxw4 (critical), fixed in 16.3.3 |
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.
| apps/nestjs-backend/webpack.dev.js | apps/nestjs-backend/webpack.dev.js:26 — 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.
2 environment files are committed
adequateapps/nextjs-app/.env, dockers/.env 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.
| apps/nextjs-app/.env | apps/nextjs-app/.env — committed environment file |
| dockers/.env | dockers/.env — 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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate7 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day. 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/docker-push.yml | .github/workflows/docker-push.yml:96 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/docker-push.yml | .github/workflows/docker-push.yml:107 — action pinned by tag |
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.
14 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate14 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.
| apps/nextjs-app/src/components/Metrics.tsx | apps/nextjs-app/src/components/Metrics.tsx:136 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/nextjs-app/src/components/Metrics.tsx | apps/nextjs-app/src/components/Metrics.tsx:289 — HTML from a variable |
| apps/nextjs-app/src/components/Metrics.tsx | apps/nextjs-app/src/components/Metrics.tsx:435 — 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.
The licence is AGPL-3.0 with additional terms
adequateLICENSE grants AGPL-3.0 with additional terms: open source; offering it over a network counts as distributing it, so a hosted product's changes must be published. The reading comes from the licence's own title and clauses. Whether the terms fit the buyer's intended use, and whether any paid licence transfers with the code, is a question for counsel and the licensor.
A note that does not affect this rating: it names the project's licence, a fact for the first screen rather than a weakness.
| LICENSE | LICENSE:1 — 37 lines, AGPL-3.0 AND LicenseRef-Terms-Additional |
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: AGPL-3.0 → AGPL-3.0 with additional terms (2025-04-01)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
A note that does not affect this rating: a licence change is a fact for the first screen, and only a narrowing of rights within two years of the surveyed commit costs "strong".
| 5973552dc | LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 from 2022-11-01 |
| 8ada7a8ee | LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 with additional terms from 2025-04-01 |
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.
4 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-08-26. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 4 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 1.10.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed 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.
| GHSA-h4hg-45pv-pv8j | 2026-08-26: GHSA-h4hg-45pv-pv8j (high), fixed in release.2026-07-20T11-53-25Z.2296: Arbitrary root file write via attachment presign hash path traversal |
| CVE-2026-56781 | 2026-06-29: CVE-2026-56781 (moderate): Teable before 2026-06-15T04-43-24Z.1912 contains an improper access control vulnerability that allows anonymous attackers to access hidden field data by supplyi |
| CVE-2026-56773 | 2026-06-26: CVE-2026-56773 (high): Teable's v2 REST API controller lacks @Permissions metadata on ORPC endpoints, allowing any authenticated user to bypass authorization checks. Attackers can rea |
| CVE-2026-9566 | 2026-05-26: CVE-2026-9566 (low): A vulnerability was identified in teableio teable up to 1.9.x. This impacts an unknown function of the file apps/nextjs-app/src/features/auth/pages/LoginPage.ts |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
6 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 (packages/v2/adapter-db-postgres-pg/ARCHITECTURE.md and 60 more). 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 51 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- measured 1,152 commits landed in the last year, against 611 the year before (+89%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- 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. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in packages/, apps/, plugins/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (dockers/teable/Dockerfile and 1 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/teableio/teable/5ef2238)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 — 72
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 12,019 · top5 share 0.019 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 48 · per kloc 0.03 · lines read 1,450,754 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.842 · early test per code 0.247 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.224 · early delete per insert 0.434 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,007 · share 0.398 · with tests 401 |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 0 · columns added last year 62 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 5,486 · compat files 0 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 127 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 3 |
| 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 50 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 3 · config files 3 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 1 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 123 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 1 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 3.8 · window last 24 months · authors 51 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 51 · active 12mo 12 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 51 · directories 4 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 51 · one off share 0.569 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 51 · 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 34 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 4 · joined 6 · regular last year 10 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 95 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 12 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,862 · source 7,347 · test ratio 0.253 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 140 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 2,712 · low content share 0.0 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 12 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 4 · recent commits 1,764 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 1 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 54 · ci configs 12 · product files 5,486 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.011 · merges 94 · long lived 1 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.043 · commits 1,634 · over 2000 lines 71 |
| 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 18,086 · share of insertions 0.0083 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 19.72 · repeat share 0.02 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 6,186 · write once share 0.419 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0197 · product files 5,485 · distinct blocks 521,743 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,458,621 · files 1 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 5 |
| 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 7,883 |
| 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.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 2,001,962 |
| 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.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | the project is itself AGPL-3.0, so copyleft components carry no obligation it has not already acceptedown license AGPL-3.0 · copyleft components 1 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on AGPL-3.0license AGPL-3.0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | the newer API version is recent; the old one may be on its way outmonths together 6 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 24 |
| 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.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.0 · days since last tag 33 · commits last 90 days 11 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 1 · on branch 17 · tags in window 18 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 16
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 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.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 TypeScript, the language 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 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 4 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version is only known to be at least 1.10.0 |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter GWD0-QJHV-76PM 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/GWD0QJHV76PM?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-04 · shown | borehole 0.7.13 | 18 | adequate |
5 earlier (show)
| 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 |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 16 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 16 | 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: 1d7c04ef8dca7905 |
| 28.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 28.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
Total 28.9s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).