915e3ab · 1,991 commits · 1,584 files
Issued 2026-11-07
Reads strong: 4 of 5 rated dimensions are strong, 1 is adequate and none is significant.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Security & Reliability Posture is adequate. 4 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 2 November 2026.
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/P42ZGKF12G9D?via=badge)- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 05.60 Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → MIT (2023-05-16) LICENSE
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions CONTRIBUTING.md:176
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 36% 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
- deep scan blamed 1,566 of 1,566 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑src/feedback/trulens/feedback/llm_provider.py is 5,559 lines, 62× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 89 lines. 21 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 5,559. 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 | src/feedback/trulens/feedback/llm_provider.py:1 — 5,559 lines (62× median) |
| line-count | src/core/trulens/core/database/sqlalchemy.py:1 — 3,408 lines (38× median) |
| line-count | src/core/trulens/core/app.py:1 — 2,382 lines (26× median) |
| line-count | src/core/trulens/core/session.py:1 — 2,181 lines (24× median) |
| line-count | src/core/trulens/core/run.py:1 — 1,981 lines (22× 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 · 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 release, trulens-2.16.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is trulens-2.12.0. 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.
| 1f65a310c | tag trulens-2.16.0 |
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 deserialiser that can run code
adequate1 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (pickle). 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.
| src/core/trulens/core/schema/app.py | src/core/trulens/core/schema/app.py:277 — 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.
Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → MIT (2023-05-16)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). The last change widened rights. 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".
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.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured The tree carries design documentation (docs/contributing/design.md). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 126 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 Experiment tracking is configured (mlflow). 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- 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 Python codebase, with TypeScript alongside (26% 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 src/, _trulens/, release_dbs/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (src/dashboard/react_components/record_viewer_otel/Dockerfile.test). 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.
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.
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/truera/trulens/915e3ab)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 — 100 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 100 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 — 69
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 3,846 · top5 share 0.034 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 169 · per kloc 0.79 · lines read 214,715 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.43 · early test per code 0.159 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.499 · early delete per insert 0.456 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 217 · share 0.673 · with tests 146 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 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 1,235 |
| 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.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 6.0 · window last 24 months · authors 126 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 126 · active 12mo 74 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 126 · directories 5 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 126 · one off share 0.492 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 126 · 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 85 |
| 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 3 · joined 21 · regular last year 24 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 50 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 5 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 274 · source 715 · test ratio 0.383 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 130 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 1,988 · low content share 0.01 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 8 · test files 402 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 5 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 855 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 5 · commits since 27 · days since lockfile changed 14 |
| 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 7 · ci configs 5 · product files 441 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.031 · commits 812 · over 2000 lines 25 |
| 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 5,546 · share of insertions 0.0055 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 25.55 · repeat share 0.002 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 551 · write once share 0.399 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0128 · product files 441 · distinct blocks 65,276 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 215,801 · files 28 · per kloc 0.39 |
| 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 1,235 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 918,034 |
| 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 0 |
| 05.migration_reversibility | migrations can be rolled backshare 0.0 · migrations 16 · irreversible 0 |
| 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.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_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.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 224 · added in two years 56 · 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 13.0 · days since last tag 17 · commits last 90 days 194 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 31
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 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 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | too few notebooks |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 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 assessed for Python, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_html | 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV PyPI trulens (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-core (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-dashboard (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-feedback (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-hotspots (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens_eval (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-claude (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-cursor (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-gepa (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-langchain (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-langgraph (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-llamaindex (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-nemo (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-opencode (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-rl (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-connectors-snowflake (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-otel-semconv (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-anthropic (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-bedrock (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-cortex (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-google (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-huggingface (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-langchain (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-litellm (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-ollama (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-openai (an empty record for a package published here) did not; NVD: 1 record names trulens with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2026-115886) |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; OSV PyPI trulens (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-core (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-dashboard (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-feedback (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-hotspots (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens_eval (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-claude (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-cursor (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-gepa (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-langchain (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-langgraph (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-llamaindex (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-nemo (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-opencode (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-apps-rl (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-connectors-snowflake (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-otel-semconv (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-anthropic (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-bedrock (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-cortex (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-google (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-huggingface (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-langchain (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-litellm (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-ollama (an empty record for a package published here), OSV PyPI trulens-providers-openai (an empty record for a package published here) did not answer; NVD: 1 record names trulens with nothing tying it to this repository (CVE-2026-115886) |
| 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 P42Z-GKF1-2G9D 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/P42ZGKF12G9D?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-11-07 · shown | borehole 0.7.16 | 6 | strong |
1 earlier (show)
| 2026-11-03 | borehole 0.7.15 | 6 | strong |
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: 264.7authenticated: False |
| 21.9s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 33.9s | read the git history | commits: 1991tracked files: 1584 |
| 171.3s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 171.3s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 234.8s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 234.8s | deleting the working copy |
Total 234.8s ·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).