0ea465b · 5,205 commits · 1,036 files
Issued 2026-10-04
AGPL-3.0 since 2023-04-14: open source; offering it over a network counts as distributing it, so a hosted product's changes must be published.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 4 raised something worth a question. 10 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.60 AGPL-3.0 since 2023-04-14: open source; offering it over a network counts as distributing it, so a hosted product's changes must be published
- 05.60 Relicensed: GPL-3.0 → AGPL-3.0 (2023-04-14) LICENSE
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions AGENTS.md:23
- 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 | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 72% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- deep scan blamed 1,036 of 1,036 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑ultralytics/models/sam/predict.py is 3,988 lines, 24× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 160 lines. 8 files exceed 1,600 lines, the largest being 3,988. 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 | ultralytics/models/sam/predict.py:1 — 3,988 lines (24× median) |
| line-count | ultralytics/data/augment.py:1 — 3,240 lines (20× median) |
| line-count | ultralytics/nn/tasks.py:1 — 2,333 lines (14× median) |
| line-count | ultralytics/nn/modules/block.py:1 — 2,081 lines (13× median) |
| line-count | ultralytics/utils/metrics.py:1 — 2,070 lines (12× 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 · adequate · ratings ↑Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase
adequate11 test files against 241 source files (4.6%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.
| test-file-ratio | 11 test files / 241 source files |
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 · adequate · ratings ↑14% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 942 fixes in the last 24 months, 131 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| fix commits touching tests | 131 of 942 |
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 | docker/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.
9 dependencies float, and no lockfile is committed
adequateDependency versions are declared as ranges and no lockfile is committed, so a build today does not necessarily produce what a build last month produced. That matters twice over in a transaction: the thing being bought cannot be reproduced exactly, and a compromised upstream release arrives without anyone choosing to take it.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| unpinned | examples/YOLOv8-Action-Recognition/requirements.txt:3 — any version |
| unpinned | examples/YOLOv8-Action-Recognition/requirements.txt:4 — any version |
| unpinned | examples/YOLOv8-ONNXRuntime/requirements.txt:1 — any version |
| unpinned | examples/YOLOv8-ONNXRuntime/requirements.txt:2 — any version |
| unpinned | examples/YOLOv8-ONNXRuntime/requirements.txt:3 — any version |
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
adequate12 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; 1 step pipes a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/ci.yml | .github/workflows/ci.yml:68 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/ci.yml | .github/workflows/ci.yml:72 — action pinned by tag |
| ultralytics/data/scripts/get_imagenet.sh | ultralytics/data/scripts/get_imagenet.sh:45 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
5 shell commands built from strings
adequate5 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.
| ultralytics/nn/modules/__init__.py | ultralytics/nn/modules/__init__.py:17 — command run through a shell |
| ultralytics/utils/checks.py | ultralytics/utils/checks.py:1180 — command run through a shell |
| ultralytics/utils/export/tensorflow.py | ultralytics/utils/export/tensorflow.py:258 — 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.
Relicensed: GPL-3.0 → AGPL-3.0 (2023-04-14)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). The latest terms restrict what users, hosts or a buyer may do in ways the earlier ones did not. Code taken under the old terms stays under them, so both matter in diligence.
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 · adequate · ratings ↑No structured logging library is in use
adequateNothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.
| logging-scan | searched 1,014 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched |
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.
One request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.
| request ids | no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
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
4 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 385 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 467 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 (clearml, comet_ml, dvclive, mlflow, tensorboard, wandb). 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 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. Does your engineering organisation already run Python in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in ultralytics/, docker/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker/Dockerfile and 13 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/ultralytics/ultralytics/0ea465b)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.
- cfb72b3 2026-09-25 · adequate
Rejection log — 94 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 94 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 72
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 2,603 · top5 share 0.069 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 7 · per kloc 0.04 · lines read 199,952 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.065 · early test per code 0.043 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.569 · early delete per insert 0.507 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 230 · compat files 0 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 4 |
| 06.print_logging | raw prints are few, or outnumbered by logger callsprints 26 · logger calls 543 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 1 · config files 0 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 224 · release commits 1 · changelog commits 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 4.0 · window last 24 months · authors 467 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 467 · active 12mo 187 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 467 · directories 4 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 467 · one off share 0.728 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 467 · 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 314 |
| 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 6 · joined 27 · regular last year 38 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 2 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 12 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 792 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 5,205 · low content share 0.001 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 12 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 11 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 12 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 8 · recent commits 3,540 |
| 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 3 · ci configs 12 · product files 230 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.006 · commits 3,394 · over 2000 lines 22 |
| 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 d5cb33b..e0764aa · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 6,433 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 804 · share of insertions 0.0017 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 17.45 · repeat share 0.004 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 385 · write once share 0.029 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0009 · product files 230 · distinct blocks 61,447 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 200,962 · files 19 · per kloc 0.18 |
| 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 1,014 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 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 390,746 |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | outbound calls set timeouts, or are fewcalls without timeout 1 |
| 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.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_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 4 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 125 · added in two years 44 · removed within 60 days 4 |
| 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 0.0 · days since last tag -10 · commits last 90 days 1,011 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release, v8.4.173, was made after the surveyed commit on the branch surveyedelsewhere 2 · on branch 779 · tags in window 792 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_advisories | no published advisory affects the surveyed versionaffecting 0 · exploited 0 · advisories 1 |
| 05.advisory_record | 1 advisory in the last 24 months, none high or critical, none affecting the surveyed version; the newest on 2024-12-10newest 2024-12-10 · critical 0 · affecting 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 22
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.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 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.dependency_update_cadence | no lockfile to date |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.notebook_outputs | too few notebooks |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no lockfile this survey can read, or a collector older than 0.4.0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.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.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter Q0E8-JRXG-34T2 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/Q0E8JRXG34T2?via=badge)
5 pieces of evidence on this report quote the repository directly. Four checks quote text: up to five TODO-style comments, up to four commit subjects, up to five unpinned dependency lines and one status line from the README's first screen, such as “no longer maintained”. In each case the text is the evidence, which is why it is kept by default.
This rewrites every stored reading of this repository, and every later reading, including a re-read, is stored without the quoted text. The facts we keep to re-read it still hold the lines, as the privacy notice says. The pointers stay.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-04 · shown | borehole 0.7.13 | 12 | adequate |
16 earlier (show)
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 13 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 12 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.0 | 12 | adequate |
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 — 3 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 | re-read from the facts kept at the last survey; nothing was cloned | facts version: 1d7c04ef8dca7905 |
| 5.5s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 5.5s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
Total 5.5s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).