678bd1a · 1,373 commits · 164 files
Issued 2026-10-23
CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 since 2020-05-03: source available, not open source; commercial use not allowed.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 2 findings are worth checking first. 10 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.60 CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 since 2020-05-03: source available, not open source; commercial use not allowed
- 05.66 The licence is CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0: source available, not open source LICENSE:1
- 05.60 Relicensed: GPL-3.0 → CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 (2020-05-03) LICENSE.md
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.
- Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | not assessable | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 0% 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 159 of 159 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑Commit messages are templated rather than written
adequate67% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 15.0 characters. A log written by someone explaining their reasoning to a future reader does not look like this. The log is therefore weak evidence of intent, whatever the code is like.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| commit-subjects | 316× 'Update README.md' |
| commit-subjects | 57× 'Add files via upload' |
| commit-subjects | 34× 'Update DataPreprocessing.md' |
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 are absent or token
adequate worth checking first0 test files against 22 source files (0.0%). 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.
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. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| test-file-ratio | 0 test files / 22 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.
Nothing in the history is tagged as a release
adequateAcross 6.6 years of history there is not one tag. There may still be a deployment process, but this repository holds no record of what shipped when — which is the record a buyer needs to reconstruct an incident or a regression after the fact.
| tag-list | 0 tags across 1,373 commits and 2408 days |
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.
Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository
adequateOf five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: CI workflows. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| process-scaffolding | 1 of 5 markers present across 164 tracked 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 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: the history is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the whole history, one contributor authored more than half of 1,247 non-merge commits among 34 authors; across all history, more than half of 1,247. In a project with 34 recent contributors and 7 years of history, that is a question about one person's role rather than a fragile team — but it is the question to ask.
| git shortlog -sn | whole history: top author more than half of 1,247 commits; bus factor 1; 34 authors |
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 contributor who wrote more than half of this has not committed here for more than a year
adequate worth checking firstOne person authored more than half of 1,247 commits and has not committed here for more than a year, while the repository has kept moving. The concentration figure alone would not show this. Whoever is changing this code now is not the person who wrote most of it, which is the situation an acquirer is usually told they are avoiding. The history shows only that no commits of theirs landed here, not why.
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. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| last-commit-by-top-author | last commit more than a year ago, measured to the survey |
| git shortlog -sn | top author more than half of 1,247 commits |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 7 of 19 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. The findings below are what it could still read.
Change keeps returning to the same few files
adequateFive files out of 586 absorb 25% of all file-level change. Concentration like this is where debt is usually being serviced rather than repaid: the same code is reopened because it is load-bearing, fragile, or both. A repository cannot tell you which — that is a conversation with the team.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| touch-count | README.md — 344 commits touched it |
| touch-count | Topics/prerequisites.md — 34 commits touched it |
| touch-count | Topics/frame-the-problem.md — 34 commits touched it |
| touch-count | Specializations/DataPreprocessing.md — 30 commits touched it |
| touch-count | Topics/teaching.md — 30 commits touched it |
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 164 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.
The licence is CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0: source available, not open source
adequateLICENSE grants CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0: source available, not open source; commercial use not allowed. The reading comes from the licence's own title and clauses. Whether the terms fit the buyer's intended use, and whether any paid licence transfers with the code, is a question for counsel and the licensor.
A note that does not affect this rating: it names the project's licence, a fact for the first screen rather than a weakness.
| LICENSE | LICENSE:1 — 437 lines, CC-BY-NC-SA-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.
Relicensed: GPL-3.0 → CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 (2020-05-03)
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".
| 6d1de58de | LICENSE.md — GPL-3.0 from 2019-03-24 |
| 47341d7b6 | LICENSE — CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 from 2020-05-03 |
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.
Check it on the running system
3 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- 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 One contributor authored more than half of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- measured Topics/, content/ (nearly all of the files) have not changed in 18 months while the rest of the repository moved. Is that code finished, or abandoned, and who still knows how it works?
- 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 coverageNot rated: only 7 of 19 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- measured No experiment tracking is configured in the repository. How was the shipped model trained and evaluated, and could it be reproduced?
- 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 JavaScript codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run JavaScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in content/, Topics/, Specializations/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- Nothing in the repository says how this is deployed. Is it shipped as a library, a binary or a service, and if it runs somewhere, who owns that environment?
- 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/virgili0/virgilio/678bd1a)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 — 95 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 95 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 — 47
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 0 · per kloc 0.0 · lines read 14,503 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.0 · early delete per insert 0.139 |
| 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 111 |
| 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.active_contributors | nobody committed in the trailing yearall time 34 · active 12mo 0 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | a healthy share of contributors committed more than onceshare 0.529 · authors 34 · one commit authors 18 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 126 · window all history · with tracked 0 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 1 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 1,247 · low content share 0.035 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 1 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 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 2 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 81 · write once share 0.481 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0 · product files 22 · distinct blocks 1,603 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 14,589 · files 0 · per kloc 0.0 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.notebook_outputs | notebooks are committed cleannotebooks 9 · with outputs 1 · stripping configured False |
| 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 111 |
| 05.dependency_pinning | dependencies are substantially pinnedunpinned 2 |
| 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 58,964 |
| 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 4 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 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.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.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 4 · added in two years 0 · 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.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 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 0 |
| 05.advisory_record | no advisory against the project in the last 24 monthscritical 0 · affecting 0 · could not tell 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 48
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | not enough code written in either half to compare |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | no tests to add to (02.3) |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 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 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | too few substantial top-level directories to read ownership |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | a team this small is 03.1's question |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the repository itself is quiet |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 02.skipped_tests | too few test files to judge how many are switched off |
| 02.revert_share | too few recent commits to judge how often change is undone |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | no lockfile to date |
| 02.lint_in_build | too small, or no CI to wire a linter into (02.2) |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 02.commit_size | too few recent commits |
| 01.oversized_modules | too few source files to establish a norm to compare against |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 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.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 | not a running service |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users |
| 04.releases_stopped | too few tagged releases to judge a cadence |
| 04.release_branch | too few release tags to tell |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter 0ZYB-R2VG-QJXD 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/0ZYBR2VGQJXD?via=badge)
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 33.1authenticated: False |
| 3.2s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 3.7s | read the git history | commits: 1373tracked files: 164 |
| 10.2s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 10.2s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 12.7s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 12.7s | deleting the working copy |
Total 12.7s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).