bc598a6 · 9,709 commits · 2,837 files
Issued 2026-09-30
1 advisory against this project is on CISA's known-exploited list; it does not affect the surveyed commit.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 5 raised something worth a question. 10 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.65 1 advisory against this project is on CISA's known-exploited list; it does not affect the surveyed commit
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md:16
- 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 | adequate | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 11% 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
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑packages/vite/src/node/plugins/css.ts is 3,686 lines, 409× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 9 lines. 13 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,686. 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.
| line-count | packages/vite/src/node/plugins/css.ts:1 — 3,686 lines (409× median) |
| line-count | packages/vite/src/node/config.ts:1 — 2,962 lines (329× median) |
| line-count | packages/vite/src/node/utils.ts:1 — 2,022 lines (224× median) |
| line-count | packages/vite/src/node/build.ts:1 — 1,987 lines (220× median) |
| line-count | packages/vite/src/node/plugins/html.ts:1 — 1,754 lines (194× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑The next contributor after the top one has not committed here for more than a year
adequateThe #2 contributor of the last three years (less than a quarter of the commits) has not committed here for more than a year, while the repository is still active. These are the people a buyer assumes would step up if the top contributor stopped. The history shows only that no commits of theirs landed here, not why.
| git shortlog -sn | the #2 contributor of the last three years (less than a quarter of the commits) has not committed here for more than a year |
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 · adequate · ratings ↑8 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate8 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Jan 2021. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.
| packages/vite/src/node/optimizer/index.ts | packages/vite/src/node/optimizer/index.ts — deprecated since Jan 2021 |
| packages/vite/src/node/build.ts | packages/vite/src/node/build.ts — deprecated since Jan 2021 |
| packages/vite/src/node/config.ts | packages/vite/src/node/config.ts — deprecated since Feb 2021 |
| packages/vite/types/importGlob.d.ts | packages/vite/types/importGlob.d.ts — deprecated since Jan 2024 |
| packages/vite/src/node/server/hmr.ts | packages/vite/src/node/server/hmr.ts — deprecated since Sep 2024 |
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 ↑15 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 21 high or critical
adequate15 of 1,304 locked dependencies match 44 published advisories in OSV, 21 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. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — brace-expansion 1.1.15: GHSA-3jxr-9vmj-r5cp (high), fixed in 1.1.16 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — brace-expansion 2.1.1: GHSA-3jxr-9vmj-r5cp (high), fixed in 2.1.2 |
| pnpm-lock.yaml | pnpm-lock.yaml — brace-expansion 5.0.9: GHSA-6j4f-fj2g-mc7p (high), fixed in 5.0.10 |
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.
13 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical, 1 on CISA's known-exploited list
adequate1 of them is on CISA's known-exploited list: check first whether the release you run has the fix. The newest was published on 2026-06-01. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. None of them affects the surveyed version.
| GHSA-4r4m-qw57-chr8 | 2025-03-31: GHSA-4r4m-qw57-chr8 (moderate; on CISA's Known Exploited list), fixed in >=4.5.11: `server.fs.deny` bypassed for `inline` and `raw` with `?import` query |
| GHSA-fx2h-pf6j-xcff | 2026-06-01: GHSA-fx2h-pf6j-xcff (high), fixed in 0.1.24: `server.fs.deny` bypass on Windows alternate paths |
| GHSA-4w7w-66w2-5vf9 | 2026-04-06: GHSA-4w7w-66w2-5vf9 (moderate), fixed in 0.1.16: Path Traversal in Optimized Deps `.map` Handling |
| GHSA-v2wj-q39q-566r | 2026-04-06: GHSA-v2wj-q39q-566r (high), fixed in 0.1.16: `server.fs.deny` bypassed with queries |
| GHSA-p9ff-h696-f583 | 2026-04-06: GHSA-p9ff-h696-f583 (high), fixed in 0.1.16: Arbitrary File Read via Vite Dev Server WebSocket |
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 2,293 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 2,293 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.
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 2,293 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.
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.
| 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.
The code branches on the environment's name at 26 places
adequate26 places outside configuration test whether they are running in production or staging. Staging then does not exercise production's code, and each deploy is the first run of those branches. Differences belong in configuration the code reads, not in the code.
| packages/vite/src/node/external.ts | packages/vite/src/node/external.ts:51 — branch on the environment name |
| packages/vite/src/node/idResolver.ts | packages/vite/src/node/idResolver.ts:67 — branch on the environment name |
| packages/vite/src/node/idResolver.ts | packages/vite/src/node/idResolver.ts:67 — branch on the environment name |
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
6 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 458 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 1,321 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. Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in packages/, patches/. 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/vitejs/vite/bc598a6)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 — 72
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 6,175 · top5 share 0.093 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 34 · per kloc 0.24 · lines read 140,416 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.436 · early test per code 0.18 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.622 · early delete per insert 0.671 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 786 · share 0.411 · with tests 323 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.009 · code files 223 · compat files 2 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 110 · release commits 111 · changelog commits 126 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 6.4 · window last 24 months · authors 1,321 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 1,321 · active 12mo 209 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 1,321 · directories 4 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 1,321 · one off share 0.746 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 1,321 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed between three and six months ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 371 |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | the team has not narrowed to one person |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 11 · joined 18 · regular last year 31 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 61 · window last 24 months · with tracked 2 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 13 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 423 · source 646 · test ratio 0.655 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 1,047 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 9,639 · low content share 0.012 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 13 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 5 · test files 562 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 13 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 2,404 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 2 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 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 4 · ci configs 13 · product files 223 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.004 · commits 1,912 · over 2000 lines 7 |
| 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 654 · share of insertions 0.0011 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 19.12 · repeat share 0.032 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 431 · write once share 0.237 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0137 · product files 223 · distinct blocks 38,360 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 142,704 · files 12 · per kloc 0.13 |
| 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 2,293 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 536,728 |
| 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 33 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 0 |
| 05.sql_from_strings | no SQL is assembled from strings in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · value interpolated 0 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 1 |
| 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.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0 |
| 05.unsafe_html | raw HTML is rare, literal or sanitisedsites 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 33 |
| 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 199 · added in two years 43 · removed within 60 days 1 |
| 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 4.5 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 341 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 134 · on branch 529 · tags in window 663 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 23
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.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 06.print_logging | a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | no deployment descriptor names an image |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.build_reproducibility | no product Dockerfile to read |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.container_runs_as_root | no Dockerfile to read |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript, the language 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.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 | could not tell whether 3 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version could not be placed |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter HR44-2E88-9PH2 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/HR442E889PH2?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-30 · shown | borehole 0.7.8 | 11 | adequate |
8 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 11 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 11 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 11 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 11 | strong |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 11 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.5 | 10 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 10 | 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 |
| 8.8s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 16.4s | read the git history | commits: 9709tracked files: 2837 |
| 61.5s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 61.5s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 85.4s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 85.4s | deleting the working copy |
Total 85.4s ·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).