e97e54f · 35,828 commits · 5,188 files
Issued 2026-10-22
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Product & Engineering Maturity.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 10 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- states a policy on AI-generated contributions .github/pull_request_template.md:48
- names OpenSSF README.md:6
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.
- 05.20 10 SQL statements built from strings
- 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 | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 62% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · adequate · ratings ↑1 base image floats: no version, or `latest`
adequate1 of 36 `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.
| docker/mini/Dockerfile | docker/mini/Dockerfile:15 — 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.
go/mysql/collations/charset/simplifiedchinese/tables.go is 43,998 lines, 354× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 124 lines. 70 files exceed 1,240 lines, the largest being 43,998. 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. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 97% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| line-count | go/mysql/collations/charset/simplifiedchinese/tables.go:1 — 43,998 lines (354× median) |
| line-count | go/mysql/collations/charset/korean/tables.go:1 — 34,151 lines (275× median) |
| line-count | go/vt/sqlparser/ast_rewrite.go:1 — 16,449 lines (132× median) |
| line-count | go/vt/sqlparser/sql.y:1 — 9,738 lines (78× median) |
| line-count | go/vt/sqlparser/ast_copy_on_rewrite.go:1 — 9,072 lines (73× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 10 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑94 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatego.mod declares 94 direct dependencies. Each one is a maintenance obligation, a supply-chain surface and a potential licence question that transfers with the asset. The count says nothing about whether any given dependency was a good choice; it says how many such choices a buyer inherits.
| direct-dependencies | go.mod — 94 declared |
| direct-dependencies | web/vtadmin/package.json — 23 declared |
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 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago
adequate5 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Nov 2022. 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.
| go/cmd/vtctldclient/command/reparents.go | go/cmd/vtctldclient/command/reparents.go — deprecated since Nov 2022 |
| go/vt/vtgate/grpcvtgateconn/conn.go | go/vt/vtgate/grpcvtgateconn/conn.go — deprecated since Feb 2023 |
| go/mysql/icuregex/internal/normalizer/constants.go | go/mysql/icuregex/internal/normalizer/constants.go — deprecated since Jul 2023 |
| go/mysql/icuregex/internal/unames/unames.go | go/mysql/icuregex/internal/unames/unames.go — deprecated since Jul 2023 |
| go/mysql/icuregex/internal/uprops/uprops_int.go | go/mysql/icuregex/internal/uprops/uprops_int.go — deprecated since Jul 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.
Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, v24.0.5, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v10.0.2. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| 9b28c872e | tag v24.0.5 |
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 ↑13 Dockerfiles run the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
| no-USER-instruction | docker/binaries/logrotate/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/binaries/logtail/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/binaries/mysqlctl/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/binaries/mysqlctld/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.
10 SQL statements built from strings
adequate worth checking first10 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters, and in 5 of them a value, not a table or column name, goes into the string. Where any of those values comes from a request, it is an injection point. Each site needs a look; the fix, parameters, is small.
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 go/vt/vtctl/workflow/stream_migrator.go:474 and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| go/vt/vtctl/workflow/stream_migrator.go | go/vt/vtctl/workflow/stream_migrator.go:474 — SQL built from a string |
| go/vt/vtctl/workflow/stream_migrator.go | go/vt/vtctl/workflow/stream_migrator.go:579 — SQL built from a string |
| go/vt/vttablet/tabletmanager/vdiff/table_differ.go | go/vt/vttablet/tabletmanager/vdiff/table_differ.go:215 — 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.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate1 step pipes a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| web/vtadmin/build.sh | web/vtadmin/build.sh:51 — download piped into a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
11 outbound calls can wait forever
adequate11 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| go/stats/opentsdb/init.go | go/stats/opentsdb/init.go:96 — outbound call without a timeout |
| go/vt/vtctl/grpcvtctldserver/server.go | go/vt/vtctl/grpcvtctldserver/server.go:5809 — outbound call without a timeout |
| go/vt/vttablet/endtoend/framework/debugschema.go | go/vt/vttablet/endtoend/framework/debugschema.go:46 — outbound call without a timeout |
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.
26 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 19 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-10-13. 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 2 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 10.0.2. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-m282-7w35-g77m (high), GHSA-9248-hccp-qf8f (high), GHSA-9rx3-8pwm-c228 (high) and 12 more are fixed in the surveyed commit; which release carries them cannot be told from this history, which does not place the release users run. Answer lives in: the version you run.
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-92cc-q2h6-m2vr | 2026-10-13: GHSA-92cc-q2h6-m2vr (high), fixed in 23.0.8: Vitess is vulnerable to SQL injection via convert_tz() arguments in a VStream filter written into the copy-phase snapshot query |
| GHSA-m282-7w35-g77m | 2026-10-13: GHSA-m282-7w35-g77m (high), fixed in 23.0.8: Vitess is vulnerable to SQL injection via an unvalidated global SET variable name re-emitted into a VTTablet validation query |
| GHSA-9248-hccp-qf8f | 2026-10-13: GHSA-9248-hccp-qf8f (high), fixed in 23.0.8: Vitess is vulnerable to SQL injection via AST re-serialization of DATE, TIME and TIMESTAMP literals in SET system-variable statements |
| GHSA-9rx3-8pwm-c228 | 2026-10-13: GHSA-9rx3-8pwm-c228 (high), fixed in 23.0.8: Vitess is vulnerable to SQL injection via a session system variable value that breaks out of the SET_VAR optimizer-hint comment |
| GHSA-pfg5-ppc7-ff45 | 2026-10-13: GHSA-pfg5-ppc7-ff45 (high), fixed in 23.0.8: Vitess is vulnerable to SQL injection via trailing-comment splitting that hides SQL from parsing, planning and ACL checks |
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 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
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- measured The tree carries design documentation (go/tools/asthelpergen/design.md). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured 532 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 Go codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Go in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in go/, web/, java/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 23 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/vitessio/vitess/e97e54f)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 — 93 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 93 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 — 75
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 15,299 · top5 share 0.021 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 607 · per kloc 0.36 · lines read 1,677,270 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.645 · early test per code 0.567 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.571 · early delete per insert 0.688 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 254 · share 0.764 · with tests 194 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.002 · code files 2,041 · compat files 4 |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | one library per job, mostly |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 40 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 66 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.telemetry_depth | the service is visible in more than one way |
| 06.correlation_ids | a request can be followed through the logstracing True · request id sites 1 |
| 06.error_reporting | an error reporter is initialisedinitialised 1 · config files 0 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 42 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 28 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 14.7 · window last 24 months · authors 532 |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 532 · active 12mo 82 |
| 03.knowledge_silos | every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 532 · directories 9 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 532 · one off share 0.361 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 532 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed more than three years ago |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 119 |
| 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 8 · joined 17 · regular last year 28 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 0 · window last 24 months · with tracked 0 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 50 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,716 · source 3,699 · test ratio 0.464 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 302 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 27,901 · low content share 0.014 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 50 · with tests 5 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 2,197 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 50 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 1,359 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 8 · commits since 6 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 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 6 · ci configs 50 · product files 2,041 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.037 · commits 1,188 · over 2000 lines 44 |
| 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 28 · share of insertions 0.0 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 28.7 · repeat share 0.066 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 2,377 · write once share 0.194 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.008 · product files 1,978 · distinct blocks 429,249 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,681,787 · 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 4,701 |
| 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_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 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 2 |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no locked dependency has a published advisory; not assessed for Mavenadvisories 0 · dependencies 460 · high or critical 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | every licence found in vendored code is permissive or weak-copyleftvendored paths 2 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as Apache-2.0class permissive · license Apache-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 1 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 376 · added in two years 216 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 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 | relicensed only between permissive licences: BSD-3-Clause → Apache-2.0 (2017-05-06)latest Apache-2.0 · weaker False · licence versions 2 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 0.0 · days since last tag 9 · commits last 90 days 297 |
| 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 — 18
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 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.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.unsafe_html | not assessed for Go, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 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 is only known to be at least 10.0.2; 15 are fixed in the surveyed commit, and the release users run is not placed by this history |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter KB5M-QE88-0GHZ 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/KB5MQE880GHZ?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: 537.8authenticated: False |
| 114.6s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 162.2s | read the git history | commits: 35828tracked files: 5188 |
| 586.7s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 586.8s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 901.1s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 901.1s | deleting the working copy |
Total 901.1s ·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).