6ce8875 · 50,000 commits · 18,275 files
Issued 2026-10-03
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Observability & Operations.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 15 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
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.
- 05.26 4 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 1 high or critical in what ships
- 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 | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 9% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- 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 ↑1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`
adequate1 of 4 `FROM` lines in product Dockerfiles name an image without a version, or with `latest`. Each build pulls whatever the registry serves that day, so the image that ships can change without a commit, and last month's build cannot be reproduced. Pin a version, or a digest.
| templates/UmbracoProject/Dockerfile | templates/UmbracoProject/Dockerfile:23 — base image without a 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.
src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/src/packages/core/icon-registry/icons.ts is 3,763 lines, 121× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 31 lines. 57 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,763. 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/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/src/packages/core/icon-registry/icons.ts:1 — 3,763 lines (121× median) |
| line-count | src/Umbraco.Core/Strings/Utf8ToAsciiConverter.cs:1 — 3,632 lines (117× median) |
| line-count | src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/src/assets/lang/en.ts:1 — 3,250 lines (104× median) |
| line-count | src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/src/assets/lang/zh.ts:1 — 3,086 lines (99× median) |
| line-count | src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/src/assets/lang/da.ts:1 — 3,013 lines (97× 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 (src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/playwright.config.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.
| src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/playwright.config.ts | src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/playwright.config.ts:29 — 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 ↑43 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate43 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Jan 2023. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| src/Umbraco.Core/Services/DataTypeService.cs | src/Umbraco.Core/Services/DataTypeService.cs — deprecated since Jan 2023 |
| src/Umbraco.Core/Services/IDataTypeService.cs | src/Umbraco.Core/Services/IDataTypeService.cs — deprecated since Feb 2023 |
| src/Umbraco.Web.Website/Routing/UmbracoRouteValueTransformer.cs | src/Umbraco.Web.Website/Routing/UmbracoRouteValueTransformer.cs — deprecated since Feb 2023 |
| src/Umbraco.Infrastructure/PropertyEditors/TagsPropertyEditor.cs | src/Umbraco.Infrastructure/PropertyEditors/TagsPropertyEditor.cs — deprecated since Feb 2023 |
| src/Umbraco.Infrastructure/Security/BackOfficeUserStore.cs | src/Umbraco.Infrastructure/Security/BackOfficeUserStore.cs — deprecated since Feb 2023 |
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 ↑None of the standard security guard rails are configured
adequateThere is no disclosure policy, no automated dependency updates, no named code owners and no pre-commit configuration. None of these is load-bearing on its own. Their collective absence says that security posture here is whatever the current team happens to remember to do, which is not a posture that survives the team changing.
| guardrail-scan | checked 5 kinds of guard rail across 18,275 tracked files; 0 present |
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.
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 | templates/UmbracoDockerCompose/Database/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.
4 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 1 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first4 of 209 locked dependencies match 24 published advisories in OSV, 4 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 src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/package-lock.json settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/package-lock.json | src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/package-lock.json — @tiptap/core 3.29.2: GHSA-j95f-988m-3j2f (high), fixed in 3.30.5 |
| src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/package-lock.json | src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/package-lock.json — js-yaml 4.2.0: GHSA-2883-xcg3-v3hh (high), fixed in 4.3.2; reached only by the build |
| src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/package-lock.json | src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/package-lock.json — dompurify 3.2.7: GHSA-39q2-94rc-95cp (moderate), fixed in 3.4.0 |
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.
5 environment files are committed
adequatesrc/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/.env, src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/.env.production, src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/.env.staging and more are tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/.env | src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/.env — committed environment file |
| src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/.env.production | src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/.env.production — committed environment file |
| src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/.env.staging | src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/.env.staging — committed environment file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
4 SQL statements built from strings
adequate4 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| src/Umbraco.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/Implement/PublishableContentRepositoryBase.cs | src/Umbraco.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/Implement/PublishableContentRepositoryBase.cs:1162 — SQL built from a string |
| src/Umbraco.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/Implement/PublishableContentRepositoryBase.cs | src/Umbraco.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/Implement/PublishableContentRepositoryBase.cs:1167 — SQL built from a string |
| src/Umbraco.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/Implement/PublishableContentRepositoryBase.cs | src/Umbraco.Infrastructure/Persistence/Repositories/Implement/PublishableContentRepositoryBase.cs:1426 — 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.
27 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 5 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-08-18. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 10 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 18.2.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. The record is incomplete: NVD: 5 records name umbraco-cms with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2018-17256, CVE-2020-5809, CVE-2020-5810, …).
A note that does not affect this rating: it describes the project's advisory record, and no advisory in it is known to affect the surveyed commit.
| GHSA-w5q3-9wf8-43gg | 2026-08-18: GHSA-w5q3-9wf8-43gg (moderate), fixed in 17.6.2: Insufficient authorization on Management API search endpoints |
| GHSA-f7m5-5x7g-2p52 | 2026-08-18: GHSA-f7m5-5x7g-2p52 (high), fixed in 17.6.2: Incorrect authorization lets Content-only backoffice users modify Templates, enabling remote code execution |
| GHSA-wr57-hqmp-fgvh | 2026-07-07: GHSA-wr57-hqmp-fgvh (high), fixed in 13.15.1: Delivery API leaks protected (Public Access) content through Content Picker / Multi-Node Tree Picker expansion |
| GHSA-vr9v-27gg-qgx4 | 2026-05-15: GHSA-vr9v-27gg-qgx4 (moderate), fixed in 17.4.0: XSS/HTML Injection in Umbraco Backoffice confirmation dialog |
| GHSA-2qjj-h6wp-c7h7 | 2026-05-15: GHSA-2qjj-h6wp-c7h7 (moderate), fixed in 13.14.0 AND 17.4.0: Open Redirect Vulnerability in Surface Controllers |
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 telemetry or error reporting is wired in anywhere
adequateNone of 17,408 readable files references an instrumentation, metrics or error-reporting library. If this system is in production, nobody learns that it broke from the system itself — they learn it from a customer. That is a reliability finding before it is an observability one.
| telemetry-scan | searched 17,408 tracked text files for 16 known instrumentation libraries; manifests for metrics, tracing and error-reporting families; locked dependencies for the packages that emit; 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.
The service logs with print: 261 calls against 1 logger calls
adequate261 `print` or `console.log` calls in the service's code, and 1 calls through a logger. Printed lines carry no level and no context, cannot be switched off, and are hard to find again in production.
| src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/devops/check-duplicate-class-names/index.js | src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/devops/check-duplicate-class-names/index.js:20 — print used for logging |
| src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/devops/check-duplicate-class-names/index.js | src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/devops/check-duplicate-class-names/index.js:22 — print used for logging |
| src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/devops/check-duplicate-class-names/index.js | src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/devops/check-duplicate-class-names/index.js:25 — print used for logging |
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.
Sends usage data to telemetry.umbraco.com by default
adequatesrc/Umbraco.Infrastructure/BackgroundJobs/Jobs/ReportSiteJob.cs sends to telemetry.umbraco.com, and src/Umbraco.Core/Manifest/PackageManifest.cs leaves reporting on as shipped. Every installation reports to the vendor unless its operator turns this off. For a buyer running it inside their own product, that is an outbound data flow to a third party: ask what is sent, how often, and whether the buyer's customers were told.
| src/Umbraco.Infrastructure/BackgroundJobs/Jobs/ReportSiteJob.cs | src/Umbraco.Infrastructure/BackgroundJobs/Jobs/ReportSiteJob.cs:74 — reports to telemetry.umbraco.com |
| src/Umbraco.Core/Manifest/PackageManifest.cs | src/Umbraco.Core/Manifest/PackageManifest.cs:38 — the reporting setting is on by default |
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.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
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.
1 of 1 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate1 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| templates/UmbracoDockerCompose/docker-compose.yml | templates/UmbracoDockerCompose/docker-compose.yml:27 — image without a 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.
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
10 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 The tree carries design documentation (src/Umbraco.Web.UI.Client/docs/architecture.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 642 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- 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 TypeScript codebase, with C# alongside (44% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in src/, build/, templates/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 42% of lines added in the last 12 months (8% of lines added in the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026)) 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 (templates/UmbracoDockerCompose/Database/Dockerfile and 2 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/umbraco/umbraco-cms/6ce8875)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 — 88 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 88 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 — 61
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few files, in the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026)files 72,029 · top5 share 0.012 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 1,639 · per kloc 1.17 · lines read 1,404,279 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) · late test per code 0.444 · early test per code 0.233 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) · late delete per insert 0.691 · early delete per insert 0.856 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 943 · share 0.363 · with tests 342 |
| 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 13,708 · compat files 0 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 35 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing False · request id sites 10 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 3 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 95 · release commits 53 · changelog commits 83 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthswindow last 24 months · authors 642 · top share less than a quarter |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 182 |
| 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 13 · joined 19 · regular last year 49 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 976 · window last 24 months · with tracked 101 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 15 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 3,105 · source 16,769 · test ratio 0.185 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026)sampled 39,897 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) · low content share 0.072 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 15 · with tests 2 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 52 · test files 3,229 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 15 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.003 · reverts 19 · recent commits 5,438 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 4 · commits since 38 · days since lockfile changed 12 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 1 · ci configs 15 · product files 13,708 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.023 · commits 4,889 · over 2000 lines 113 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was a branch merged by a merge commit, developed on its own branch and landed in one piece (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 it, in the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) · largest commits 7193a41..60dbc54 · bursts explained 3 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) · length stdev 33.44 · repeat share 0.175 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.02 · product files 13,660 · distinct blocks 410,654 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,420,731 · files 1 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 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 17,408 |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 38 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 2 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 35 |
| 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 162 · added in two years 11 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 1.0 · days since last tag 12 · commits last 90 days 607 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyed, in the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026)elsewhere 105 · on branch 383 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 27
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (29 Mar 2018 to 29 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was added outside test and fixture paths in the 20,000 most recent commits scanned; older history was not read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript or C#, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | 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 |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; NVD: 5 records name umbraco-cms with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2018-17256, CVE-2020-5809, CVE-2020-5810, …) |
| 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 N6PF-P75D-EE6H 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/N6PFP75DEE6H?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-03 · shown | borehole 0.7.12 | 18 | adequate |
5 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 18 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 18 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 17 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 18 | 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 — 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 | authenticated: False |
| 52.9s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 94.9s | read the git history | commits: 50000tracked files: 18275 |
| 530.4s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 530.4s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 823.6s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 823.6s | deleting the working copy |
Total 823.6s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).