adac27a · 50,000 commits · 7,285 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Organization & Key-Person Risk.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 9 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 03.60 The project says one person maintains it README.md:299
- 21 submodule(s) this survey does not read: vendor/tinyagents, vendor/tinyflows, vendor/tinychannels .gitmodules:1
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 54 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 13 high or critical in what ships
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 1 credential-shaped match is withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | not assessable | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 77% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑app/src/lib/i18n/ja.ts is 5,459 lines, 39× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 138 lines. 27 files exceed 1,380 lines, the largest being 5,459. 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 | app/src/lib/i18n/ja.ts:1 — 5,459 lines (39× median) |
| line-count | app/src/lib/i18n/en.ts:1 — 5,380 lines (38× median) |
| line-count | app/src/lib/i18n/de.ts:1 — 5,253 lines (38× median) |
| line-count | app/src/lib/i18n/fr.ts:1 — 5,228 lines (37× median) |
| line-count | app/src/lib/i18n/es.ts:1 — 5,206 lines (37× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (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.
| app/playwright.config.ts | app/playwright.config.ts:9 — 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 project says one person maintains it
adequateIts own files say so. Whatever the commit counts show, the project describes itself as depending on one person.
| README.md | README.md:299 — says it has a single maintainer |
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 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 7 of 19 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑1 credential-shaped string in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings
adequateStrings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key.
| GitHub token | GitHub token, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
2 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 | .oss-scanner/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | 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.
54 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 13 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first54 of 2,849 locked dependencies match 158 published advisories in OSV, 67 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 pnpm-lock.yaml settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — @xmldom/xmldom 0.8.13: GHSA-27p8-2357-5qqv (high), fixed in 0.8.15 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — react-router 7.14.2: GHSA-8x6r-g9mw-2r78 (high), fixed in 7.15.0 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — socket.io-parser 4.2.6: GHSA-2m8v-j782-fhvr (high), fixed in 4.2.7 |
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.
| app/vite.config.ts | app/vite.config.ts:281 — 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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate13 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; 7 steps pipe 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.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/android-compile.yml | .github/workflows/android-compile.yml:101 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/android-compile.yml | .github/workflows/android-compile.yml:107 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/Dockerfile | .github/Dockerfile:34 — 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.
12 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 10 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-09. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 12 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 0.64.15. 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-g6j9-89xv-v752 | 2026-10-09: GHSA-g6j9-89xv-v752 (high), fixed in >= 0.57.13: MCP tool description injection: untrusted server descriptions execute in agent LLM context without sanitization |
| GHSA-p9gw-q7cf-57qr | 2026-10-09: GHSA-p9gw-q7cf-57qr (high), fixed in >= 0.57.13: Indirect prompt injection via background email sync executes Composio actions without user approval |
| GHSA-gg3m-wgmq-vhmx | 2026-10-09: GHSA-gg3m-wgmq-vhmx (critical), fixed in >= 0.57.13: Yuanbao non-web channel can bypass human approval to execute `node_exec` |
| GHSA-f46p-6vf9-64mm | 2026-10-09: GHSA-f46p-6vf9-64mm (critical), fixed in >= 0.57.13: OpenHuman allows remote inbound channel messages to create unapproved shell cron jobs leading to host command execution |
| GHSA-ww8p-c82p-p8wx | 2026-10-09: GHSA-ww8p-c82p-p8wx (high), fixed in >= 0.57.5: Bearer token leaked via approval gate session_id (SQLite plaintext + debug log + RPC response) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 7 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
5 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/gitbooks/en/developing/architecture.md and 1 more). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured One contributor authored three-quarters or more of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverageNot rated: only 7 of 19 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- measured A roadmap file is in the tree (docs/gitbooks/en/overview/roadmap.md, last changed October 2026). A file is not a plan. Does it match the roadmap in the data room, and has the team delivered the last one it wrote?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured 05.1 and 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was.
- measured A threat model is in the tree (.oss-scanner/threat_model.md). Does it name the assets this code actually handles, and is it current against the deployment?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverageNot rated: only 7 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- 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 Rust codebase, with TypeScript alongside (22% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Rust in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in app/, crates/, packages/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (.do/app.yaml and 5 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/tinyhumansai/openhuman/adac27a)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 — 94 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 94 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 — 41
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few files, in the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026)files 30,846 · top5 share 0.009 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 32 · per kloc 0.02 · lines read 1,470,256 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 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 59 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 2 · config files 0 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 3 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 1 · floating 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 24 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 2,513 · source 5,762 · test ratio 0.436 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026)sampled 45,811 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) · low content share 0.0 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 24 · with tests 6 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 35 · test files 1,382 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 24 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 7 · commits since 1 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 4 · ci configs 24 · product files 4,451 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) · length stdev 749.3 · repeat share 0.166 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0053 · product files 4,451 · distinct blocks 683,497 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 5 |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 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_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 21 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on GPL-3.0license GPL-3.0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | all 21 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 21 · stated in headers or notices 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as GPL-3.0class strong-copyleft · license GPL-3.0 |
| 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 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyed, in the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026)elsewhere 4 · on branch 72 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 53
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | history too short to compare code and test growth, in the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) |
| 04.churn_trend | history too short to read a churn trend, in the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 04.fix_share_trend | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 546 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 04.schema_churn | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 455 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 04.compat_layers | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 548 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Rust: its logging setup is not read |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.correlation_ids | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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.environment_branching | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.release_markers | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 365 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.contributor_concentration | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 1095 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 1095 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.merge_discipline | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.revert_share | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.long_lived_branches | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 02.commit_size | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.unfinished_migration | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 365 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_html | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 04.flags_accumulating | the history scanned covers 0 months, less than the 12 this question needs |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | the history scanned covers 0 months, less than the 18 this question needs |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | the history scanned covers 0 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.dependency_churn | the history scanned covers 0 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | the history scanned covers 0 months, less than the 24 this question needs |
| 04.releases_stopped | not assessed: the history read covers 242 days, less than the 730 this check needs; only the most recent 50,000 commits (23 Feb 2026 to 23 Oct 2026) were read |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD 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 38RD-2SH6-TH82 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/38RD2SH6TH82?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: 424.1authenticated: False |
| 68.1s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 199.0s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 7285 |
| 553.4s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 553.5s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 762.6s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 762.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 762.6s ·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).