fbf2ceb · 11,535 commits · 10,282 files
Issued 2026-10-23
MIT since 2023-08-29: open source; use, change and redistribution need only attribution.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 13 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.60 MIT since 2023-08-29: open source; use, change and redistribution need only attribution
- 05.60 Relicensed: MIT → MPL-2.0 (2022-12-30) → MIT (2023-08-29) LICENSE
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md:19
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 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 |
- 9% 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 ↑packages/common/graphql/src/schema.ts is 8,642 lines, 151× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 57 lines. 43 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 8,642. 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 86% 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 | packages/common/graphql/src/schema.ts:1 — 8,642 lines (151× median) |
| line-count | packages/frontend/apps/android/App/app/src/main/java/uniffi/affine_mobile_native/affine_mobile_native.kt:1 — 4,013 lines (70× median) |
| line-count | packages/frontend/core/src/components/affine/onboarding/switch-widgets/toolbar.tsx:1 — 3,727 lines (65× median) |
| line-count | packages/frontend/apps/ios/App/App/uniffi/affine_mobile_native.swift:1 — 3,408 lines (59× median) |
| line-count | packages/backend/native/src/runtime/backend_runtime/payment/tests.rs:1 — 3,350 lines (58× 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 (packages/backend/server/src/core/doc/__tests__/codec-compare.spec.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.
| packages/backend/server/src/core/doc/__tests__/codec-compare.spec.ts | packages/backend/server/src/core/doc/__tests__/codec-compare.spec.ts:339 — 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 7 to 1
adequateYear by year, newest first, the number of people who wrote half the changes was 1, 7, 4, 3. 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, 7, 4, 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.
Regular contributors fell from 36 to 12 in a year
adequate25 people who committed regularly the year before made no commits in the last year, and 10 new regular contributors arrived. Ask whether the work they did is still covered.
| regular contributors by year | 36 then 12; 25 stopped committing, 10 began |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑88 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatepackages/backend/server/package.json declares 88 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.
| direct-dependencies | packages/backend/server/package.json — 88 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/frontend/core/package.json — 87 declared |
| direct-dependencies | blocksuite/affine/all/package.json — 69 declared |
| direct-dependencies | packages/frontend/admin/package.json — 52 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.
9 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate9 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Dec 2023. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| packages/frontend/component/src/ui/popover/index.ts | packages/frontend/component/src/ui/popover/index.ts — deprecated since Dec 2023 |
| packages/frontend/component/src/components/notification-center/index.jotai.ts | packages/frontend/component/src/components/notification-center/index.jotai.ts — deprecated since Apr 2024 |
| packages/frontend/component/src/components/notification-center/index.tsx | packages/frontend/component/src/components/notification-center/index.tsx — deprecated since Apr 2024 |
| packages/frontend/component/src/styles/styled.tsx | packages/frontend/component/src/styles/styled.tsx — deprecated since Jun 2024 |
| packages/frontend/component/src/components/import-page/index.tsx | packages/frontend/component/src/components/import-page/index.tsx — deprecated since Aug 2024 |
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 | .render/Dockerfile — runs as root |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate17 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/build-images.yml | .github/workflows/build-images.yml:209 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/build-images.yml | .github/workflows/build-images.yml:216 — 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.
2 shell commands built from strings
adequate2 places run a command through a shell (`shell=True`, `os.system`, `exec` with a template) rather than passing arguments. Where any part comes from outside, it is command injection. 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.
| packages/frontend/apps/ios/codegen.ts | packages/frontend/apps/ios/codegen.ts:15 — command run through a shell |
| packages/frontend/apps/ios/codegen.ts | packages/frontend/apps/ios/codegen.ts:28 — command run through 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.
22 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 2 high or critical
adequate22 of 3,937 locked dependencies match 29 published advisories in OSV, 2 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| yarn.lock | yarn.lock — dompurify 3.4.16: GHSA-cg2g-xh64-v4q7 (critical), fixed in 3.4.17 |
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — rsa 0.9.10: RUSTSEC-2023-0071 (moderate) |
| yarn.lock | yarn.lock — ip-address 10.7.3: GHSA-rxp7-6hxx-x8q5 (moderate), fixed in 10.7.4 |
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.
15 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate15 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.
| blocksuite/affine/components/src/toast/html-to-element.ts | blocksuite/affine/components/src/toast/html-to-element.ts:13 — HTML from a variable |
| blocksuite/affine/components/src/toast/html-to-element.ts | blocksuite/affine/components/src/toast/html-to-element.ts:16 — HTML from a variable |
| blocksuite/docs-site/.vitepress/theme/components/blog-post-meta.vue | blocksuite/docs-site/.vitepress/theme/components/blog-post-meta.vue:4 — 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.
Relicensed: MIT → MPL-2.0 (2022-12-30) → MIT (2023-08-29)
adequateThe root licence changed 2 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".
| e3e374139 | LICENSE — MIT from 2022-07-22 |
| 6c2c7dcd4 | LICENSE — MPL-2.0 from 2022-12-30 |
| 2f6c4e369 | LICENSE — MIT from 2023-08-29 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
3 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-07-08. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 3 records name AFFiNE with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2025-11945, CVE-2026-7702, CVE-2026-99085).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| CVE-2026-59262 | 2026-07-08: CVE-2026-59262 (high): AFFiNE's histories GraphQL field fails to validate Doc.Read permission before exposing document edit history, allowing authenticated workspace members to retrie |
| GHSA-wx9m-v7wq-g289 | 2026-03-02: GHSA-wx9m-v7wq-g289 (moderate), fixed in 0.26.0: Open Redirect via Regex Bypass in redirect-proxy |
| GHSA-67vm-2mcj-8965 | 2026-03-02: GHSA-67vm-2mcj-8965 (high): One-click Remote Code Execution through Custom URL Handling in AFFiNE v0.25.1 |
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.
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
3 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 8,531 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 279 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 599 commits landed in the last year, against 3,443 the year before (-83%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three.
- 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 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 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/, blocksuite/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (.render/Dockerfile). 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/toeverything/affine/fbf2ceb)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 — 92 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 92 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 — 77
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 30,630 · top5 share 0.02 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 343 · per kloc 0.3 · lines read 1,149,710 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.428 · early delete per insert 0.482 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 1,686 · share 0.259 · with tests 437 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 0 · columns added last year 46 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.003 · code files 7,015 · compat files 19 |
| 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 99 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 2 |
| 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 32 |
| 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 2 · settings off 1 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 134 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 16 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 4.3 · window last 24 months · authors 279 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 279 · active 12mo 96 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 279 · directories 5 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 279 · one off share 0.505 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 279 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than three years ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 144 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 4 · window last 24 months · with tracked 155 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 11 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 993 · source 7,872 · test ratio 0.126 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 798 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 10,938 · low content share 0.008 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 11 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 62 · test files 1,294 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 11 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.001 · reverts 6 · recent commits 4,056 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 2 · commits since 1 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 6 · ci configs 11 · product files 7,015 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.042 · commits 3,737 · over 2000 lines 157 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was merged pull requests, each developed and reviewed on its own branch (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays itlargest commits c9f8e49..1e3499c · bursts explained 3 · largest net added 4,263 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 108,124 · share of insertions 0.0364 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 16.96 · repeat share 0.038 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 7,248 · write once share 0.424 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0171 · product files 7,010 · distinct blocks 555,472 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,158,373 · files 10 · per kloc 0.01 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 1 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 9,087 |
| 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.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 11 · irreversible 0 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | plain HTTP is not allowed app-widesites 0 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on MITlicense MIT |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as MITclass permissive · license MIT |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the historylive 0 · retired 1 · flags seen 1 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 355 · added in two years 201 · removed within 60 days 2 |
| 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 0.5 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 131 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 131 · on branch 253 · tags in window 384 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 15
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | tests are kept inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 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 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | no third-party code is committed to this repository, so the licences it depends on are resolved at build time and are not readable here |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 3 records name AFFiNE with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2025-11945, CVE-2026-7702, CVE-2026-99085) |
| 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 7JZX-GC8C-6E95 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/7JZXGC8C6E95?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: 444.1authenticated: False |
| 33.2s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 60.7s | read the git history | commits: 11535tracked files: 10282 |
| 326.0s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 326.0s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 479.6s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 479.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 479.6s ·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).