37f788b · 11,602 commits · 4,217 files
Issued 2026-10-23
Reads strong: 4 of 6 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture and Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance are adequate. 2 findings are worth checking first. 11 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
This repository reads strong. Show it in your README: the badge links to a page where anyone can check the reading. 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/XH1MGWXEK01D?via=badge)- The project does not take pull requests CONTRIBUTING.md:153
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/pull_request_template.md:6
- names OpenSSF SECURITY.md:158
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.
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 25% 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
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑4 of 6 notebooks are committed with their outputs
adequate67% of the notebooks carry cell outputs in git, and nothing strips them before commit. Outputs bloat the history, make changes unreadable in review, and carry whatever the cells printed: data, and sometimes keys.
| notebooks/cognee_demo.ipynb | notebooks/cognee_demo.ipynb — notebook with outputs |
| notebooks/cognee_multimedia_demo.ipynb | notebooks/cognee_multimedia_demo.ipynb — notebook with outputs |
| notebooks/cognee_simple_demo.ipynb | notebooks/cognee_simple_demo.ipynb — notebook with outputs |
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.
cognee/infrastructure/databases/graph/ladybug/adapter.py is 3,972 lines, 44× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 89 lines. 26 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,972. 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 | cognee/infrastructure/databases/graph/ladybug/adapter.py:1 — 3,972 lines (44× median) |
| line-count | cognee/modules/retrieval/code_retriever.py:1 — 3,262 lines (36× median) |
| line-count | cognee/infrastructure/databases/graph/neo4j_driver/adapter.py:1 — 2,550 lines (28× median) |
| line-count | cognee/modules/visualization/views/story_view.js:1 — 2,354 lines (26× median) |
| line-count | cognee/api/v1/remember/remember.py:1 — 2,211 lines (24× 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 (cognee-frontend/src/services/http/__tests__/client.test.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.
| cognee-frontend/src/services/http/__tests__/client.test.ts | cognee-frontend/src/services/http/__tests__/client.test.ts:299 — 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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest pre-release, v1.6.6rc1, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v1.6.5. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| 277a314f5 | tag v1.6.6rc1 |
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 | cognee/eval_framework/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.
11 SQL statements built from strings
adequate worth checking first11 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters, and in 8 of them a value, not a table or column name, goes into the string. Where any of those values comes from a request, it is an injection point. Each site needs a look; the fix, parameters, is small.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening cognee/infrastructure/databases/graph/turso/adapter.py:291 settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| cognee/infrastructure/databases/graph/turso/adapter.py | cognee/infrastructure/databases/graph/turso/adapter.py:291 — SQL built from a string |
| cognee/infrastructure/databases/graph/turso/adapter.py | cognee/infrastructure/databases/graph/turso/adapter.py:309 — SQL built from a string |
| cognee/infrastructure/databases/graph/turso/adapter.py | cognee/infrastructure/databases/graph/turso/adapter.py:597 — SQL built from a string |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
38 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 58 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first38 of 944 locked dependencies match 140 published advisories in OSV, 65 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version.
The check that found this reads significant, but it has not yet held up often enough in Borehole's calibration to rate a finding significant on its own. Opening cognee-mcp/uv.lock and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| cognee-mcp/uv.lock | cognee-mcp/uv.lock — anyio 4.14.1: GHSA-82r6-8w77-94w6 (critical), fixed in 4.14.2 |
| cognee-mcp/uv.lock | cognee-mcp/uv.lock — certifi 2026.6.17: GHSA-6q48-6c7w-9gw2 (critical), fixed in 2026.10.19 |
| uv.lock | uv.lock — certifi 2026.7.22: GHSA-6q48-6c7w-9gw2 (critical), fixed in 2026.10.19 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
4 shell commands built from strings
adequate4 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.
| cognee/api/v1/ui/node_setup.py | cognee/api/v1/ui/node_setup.py:41 — command run through a shell |
| cognee/api/v1/ui/node_setup.py | cognee/api/v1/ui/node_setup.py:291 — command run through a shell |
| cognee/api/v1/ui/npm_utils.py | cognee/api/v1/ui/npm_utils.py:19 — 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.
5 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate5 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.
| cognee-frontend/src/modules/config/RuntimeConfigScript.tsx | cognee-frontend/src/modules/config/RuntimeConfigScript.tsx:18 — HTML from a variable |
| cognee/modules/visualization/views/semantic_map.js | cognee/modules/visualization/views/semantic_map.js:219 — HTML from a variable |
| cognee/modules/visualization/views/story_view.js | cognee/modules/visualization/views/story_view.js:1196 — 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.
3 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 2 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-04. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed version.
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| CVE-2026-105141 | 2026-10-04: CVE-2026-105141 (moderate): A security flaw has been discovered in topoteretes cognee up to 1.5.4. The affected element is the function get_user_id_by_email of the file cognee/modules/user |
| GHSA-49f7-whx5-4256 | 2026-07-07: GHSA-49f7-whx5-4256 (critical), fixed in 1.5.0: Cognee allows non-superusers to overwrite global LLM configuration |
| GHSA-8pr4-p4c8-8gr9 | 2026-05-12: GHSA-8pr4-p4c8-8gr9 (critical), fixed in 1.2.0: Cognee notebook cell execution endpoint passes request bodies to exec(), allowing remote code execution |
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 ↑1 of 2 deployments run a single replica
adequate1 deployments set `replicas: 1`, and nothing (an autoscaler, a disruption budget) adds more. Every deploy and every node drain is downtime, and the availability the buyer inherits has a ceiling.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| deployment/helm/templates/postgres_deployment.yaml | deployment/helm/templates/postgres_deployment.yaml — replicas: 1 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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 2,621 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 323 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 5,200 commits landed in the last year, against 2,255 the year before (+131%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- measured Experiment tracking is configured (neptune). Can the model that ships be tied to the run, data and code that produced it?
- measured No model card is in the tree. What is the model's intended use, what was it trained on, and where does it fail?
- 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 Python codebase, with TypeScript alongside (23% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in cognee/, cognee-mcp/, cognee-frontend/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 36% of lines added in the last 12 months (28% of added lines) came through AI-declared commits. Does your organisation have a policy on inheriting and maintaining that code, and does your engineering team's tooling match how it was produced?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 21 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/topoteretes/cognee/37f788b)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 — 83
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 7,891 · top5 share 0.038 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 52 · per kloc 0.08 · lines read 686,784 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.701 · early test per code 0.108 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.419 · early delete per insert 0.695 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 2,650 · share 0.458 · with tests 1,215 |
| 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 29 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.018 · code files 2,150 · compat files 38 |
| 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 31 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 3 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 16 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 0 · config files 1 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 6 · settings off 1 |
| 06.probes_identical | readiness and liveness are distinct, or not both setidentical 0 · workloads with both 1 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 98 · release commits 19 · changelog commits 53 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 3.2 · window last 24 months · authors 323 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 323 · active 12mo 262 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 323 · one off share 0.545 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 323 · top share a quarter or more · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 315 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 14 · joined 70 · regular last year 80 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 3,235 · window last 24 months · with tracked 263 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 64 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,205 · source 3,355 · test ratio 0.359 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 164 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 8,245 · low content share 0.028 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 64 · with tests 15 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 1,247 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 64 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.006 · reverts 47 · recent commits 7,455 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 3 · commits since 0 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 6 · ci configs 64 · product files 2,150 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.17 · merges 270 · long lived 46 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.017 · commits 6,569 · over 2000 lines 110 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was data and assets (95% 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 5400b18..7c6e9da · bursts explained 2 · largest net added 44,022 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 23 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 25.58 · repeat share 0.15 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,504 · write once share 0.317 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0081 · product files 2,150 · distinct blocks 192,444 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 690,790 · files 37 · per kloc 0.09 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 10 |
| 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 4,016 |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 286 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 2 |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 1 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.072 · migrations 69 · irreversible 5 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.resource_limits | every workload declares limitsworkloads 2 · without limits 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.dataset_provenance | little data is committeddata files 0 · licence or card files 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 7 |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | manifest and licence file agree on Apache-2.0license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 19 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 271 · added in two years 148 · removed within 60 days 20 |
| 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 |
| 05.licence_changes | relicensed only between permissive licences: MIT → Apache-2.0 (2024-01-23)latest Apache-2.0 · weaker False · licence versions 2 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 4.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 2,520 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 9
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 05.public_env_secret | not assessed for Python, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV PyPI cognee-mcp (an empty record for a package published here) did not |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited list |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter XH1M-GWXE-K01D 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/XH1MGWXEK01D?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: 275.8authenticated: False |
| 28.8s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 45.9s | read the git history | commits: 11602tracked files: 4217 |
| 303.6s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 303.6s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 493.7s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 493.7s | deleting the working copy |
Total 493.7s ·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).