8c985c1 · 47 commits · 2,030 files
Issued 2026-11-03
106 checks ran against this repository and none found a problem. People was not rated.
Commit history, review discipline, contributor concentration, debt markers, committed credentials and instrumentation were all examined and none of them raised a finding. That is a result about the repository, not an absence of one — the rejection log below lists every check and the numbers it saw, so a clean report can be argued with as easily as a critical one. Last commit 24 October 2026.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | not assessable | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | strong | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 0% 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
- only 45 non-merge commits to measure across
- deep scan blamed 1,986 of 1,986 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑libs/phpmailer/phpmailer/src/PHPMailer.php is 5,249 lines, 124× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 42 lines. 11 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 5,249. 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 | libs/phpmailer/phpmailer/src/PHPMailer.php:1 — 5,249 lines (124× median) |
| line-count | libs/bcosca/fatfree-core/base.php:1 — 3,734 lines (88× median) |
| line-count | libs/matomo/device-detector/Parser/Device/AbstractDeviceParser.php:1 — 2,512 lines (59× median) |
| line-count | ui/js/parts/DataRenderers.js:1 — 2,421 lines (57× median) |
| line-count | libs/phpmailer/phpmailer/src/SMTP.php:1 — 1,510 lines (35× 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 ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 4 of 10 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. The findings below are what it could still read.
2 of 7 major areas have only ever had one author
adequateAcross 8 contributors, 2 substantial top-level areas have been touched by exactly one person. The headline bus factor does not show this: a team can look well spread in aggregate and still have subsystems that stop moving the day one person stops working on them. For these areas, ask who else can change them today.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
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 · strong · ratings ↑6 deserialisers that can run code
adequate6 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (PHP `unserialize`). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| libs/bcosca/fatfree-core/base.php | libs/bcosca/fatfree-core/base.php:464 — code-executing deserialiser |
| libs/bcosca/fatfree-core/base.php | libs/bcosca/fatfree-core/base.php:523 — code-executing deserialiser |
| libs/bcosca/fatfree-core/base.php | libs/bcosca/fatfree-core/base.php:1311 — code-executing deserialiser |
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.
6 vendored components with no licence
adequateThird-party code is committed into this repository without any statement of the terms it arrived under. Unknown terms are harder to deal with than inconvenient ones: an awkward licence can be complied with, an absent one cannot. Each of these needs its origin established before the code changes hands.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| ui/js/vendor/accept-language-parser-1.5.0 | ui/js/vendor/accept-language-parser-1.5.0 — 2 tracked files, no licence file |
| ui/js/vendor/choices-10.2.0 | ui/js/vendor/choices-10.2.0 — 3 tracked files, no licence file |
| ui/js/vendor/datatables-2.3.2 | ui/js/vendor/datatables-2.3.2 — 1 tracked files, no licence file |
| ui/js/vendor/devbridge-jquery-autocomplete-1.5.0 | ui/js/vendor/devbridge-jquery-autocomplete-1.5.0 — 2 tracked files, no licence file |
| ui/js/vendor/jvectormap-2.0.5 | ui/js/vendor/jvectormap-2.0.5 — 3 tracked files, no licence file |
| ui/js/vendor/uPlot-1.6.18 | ui/js/vendor/uPlot-1.6.18 — 2 tracked files, no licence 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.
2 advisories against this project in the last 24 months
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-07-09. 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 1 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 0.10.1. 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-gwcm-4p9m-9mvr | 2026-07-09: GHSA-gwcm-4p9m-9mvr (moderate), fixed in 0.10.0: CWE-384: Session Fixation in Login Authentication |
| CVE-2025-55472 | 2025-09-02: CVE-2025-55472 (moderate): SQL Injection vulnerability exists in Tirreno v0.9.5, specifically in the /admin/loadUsers API endpoint. The vulnerability arises due to unsafe handling of user |
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 5 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
1 check against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 1,746 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverageNot rated: only 4 of 10 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- measured One contributor authored more than half 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.
- 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- 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 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a PHP codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run PHP in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in libs/, ui/, app/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/tirrenotechnologies/tirreno/8c985c1)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 — 101 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 101 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 — 53
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 2,669 · top5 share 0.014 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 69 · per kloc 0.46 · lines read 149,587 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 1,650 |
| 06.structured_logging | not a running service; structured logging is not expected of a librarybasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 8 · active 12mo 5 |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 8 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 3 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 258 · source 1,442 · test ratio 0.179 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 15 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 3 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 262 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 3 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 5 · days since lockfile changed 71 |
| 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 1 · ci configs 3 · product files 1,197 |
| 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 661 · share of insertions 0.0023 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 12.98 · repeat share 0.178 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 1,636 · write once share 0.433 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0161 · product files 1,184 · distinct blocks 54,701 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 151,213 · files 2 · per kloc 0.01 |
| 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 1,650 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | dependencies are substantially pinnedunpinned 0 |
| 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 251,587 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 5 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 1 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no locked dependency has a published advisoryadvisories 0 · dependencies 5 · high or critical 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 | 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_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 32 · added in two years 32 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 39.5 · days since last tag 80 · commits last 90 days 7 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 0 · on branch 15 · tags in window 15 |
| 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 — 48
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.test_growth | history too short to compare code and test growth |
| 04.churn_trend | history too short to read a churn trend |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | too few fixes in 24 months to judge |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.contributor_concentration | too few commits to judge contributor concentration |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | too few contributors to judge whether people return |
| 03.contributor_attrition | too little history to tell activity from absence |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | too little history |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 02.merge_discipline | too few commits to judge how change lands |
| 02.conventional_commits | too few commits to judge whether the log is written for a reader |
| 02.revert_share | too few recent commits to judge how often change is undone |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 02.commit_size | too few recent commits |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest licence 'AGPL-3.0+' is not a recognised SPDX identifier |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | not a running service |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 1 published advisory affects the surveyed code: its version could not be placed |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter HPF5-R2ZY-884M 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/HPF5R2ZY884M?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: 3.9authenticated: False |
| 1.5s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 2.2s | read the git history | commits: 47tracked files: 2030 |
| 40.2s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 40.2s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 61.5s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 61.5s | deleting the working copy |
Total 61.5s ·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).