7664001 · 14,960 commits · 10,600 files
Issued 2026-10-04
Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Product & Engineering Maturity.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 2 findings are worth checking first. 19 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
- The file and line of 1 credential-shaped match is withheld. File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 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 | strong | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 32% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- the declared share is neither decisive nor negligible, so the true figure is more sensitive to undeclared work
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑backend/windmill-api-workspaces/src/workspaces.rs is 14,679 lines, 225× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 65 lines. 213 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 14,679. 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 92% 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 | backend/windmill-api-workspaces/src/workspaces.rs:1 — 14,679 lines (225× median) |
| line-count | backend/windmill-api/src/jobs.rs:1 — 12,279 lines (188× median) |
| line-count | backend/windmill-runtime-nativets/src/windmill-client.js:1 — 10,372 lines (159× median) |
| line-count | frontend/tailwindClasses.js:1 — 8,978 lines (138× median) |
| line-count | frontend/src/lib/components/copilot/chat/global/core.ts:1 — 8,832 lines (135× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑Tests are retried until they pass
adequateThe suite is configured to retry failing tests (frontend/playwright.config.ts). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| frontend/playwright.config.ts | frontend/playwright.config.ts:22 — test retry |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 7,143 non-merge commits among 84 authors; across all history, more than half of 14,426. This is the single most expensive thing to discover after closing, and the repository cannot tell you whether that person is part of the transaction.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 7,143 commits; bus factor 1; 84 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.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · adequate · ratings ↑107 direct dependencies in a single manifest
adequatefrontend/package.json declares 107 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 | frontend/package.json — 107 declared |
| direct-dependencies | cli/package.json — 31 declared |
| direct-dependencies | ai_evals/package.json — 5 declared |
| direct-dependencies | multiplayer/package.json — 5 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.
17% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 2870 fixes in the last 24 months, 483 touched a test. A fix without the test that would have caught the bug can quietly come back, and the suite never learns from what went wrong.
| fix commits touching tests | 483 of 2870 |
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.
Node.js 20 is past end of life
adequateThe code is pinned to Node.js 20 (end of life 2026-04-30). None of these receives security fixes any more; the first stopped on 2026-04-30. Moving off an unsupported runtime is rarely a one-line change, so a buyer should ask whether the upgrade is planned and what it touches.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| docker/RHEL8/Dockerfile | docker/RHEL8/Dockerfile — Node.js 20, end of life 2026-04-30 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑1 credential-shaped string in the tree sit in tests, examples, documentation or local development settings
adequateStrings shaped like credentials appear only where fakes are usual: test fixtures, examples, documentation, placeholders and local stacks. They are almost always fakes. Ask someone to confirm that none of them works anywhere, because a real key in a development file is still a real key. 7 other matchs set aside: expired tokens, licence tokens a vendor verifies with a public key, or placeholder text where a key would go. None grants access to anything.
| JWT | JWT, where fakes are usual |
| File and line are shown to whoever GitHub says controls this repository, signed in, and to a buyer of this report. |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
4 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 | Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | debugger/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/RHEL8/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | docker/RHEL9/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.
49 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 4 high or critical in what ships
adequate worth checking first49 of 2,342 locked dependencies match 65 published advisories in OSV, 11 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.
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 python-client/wmill/uv.lock and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| python-client/wmill/uv.lock | python-client/wmill/uv.lock — anyio 4.12.1: GHSA-82r6-8w77-94w6 (critical), fixed in 4.14.2 |
| frontend/package-lock.json | frontend/package-lock.json — devalue 5.9.2: GHSA-j22f-vq7h-c4qm (high), fixed in 5.9.3 |
| backend/Cargo.lock | backend/Cargo.lock — aws-smithy-json 0.61.9: GHSA-8ffr-xgwf-xj56 (high), fixed in 0.62.7 |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 workload setting give a container the host
adequate worth checking first1 places in the deployment configuration run a container privileged or in the host's network, process or IPC namespace. A compromise of that container is a compromise of the machine, and most acquirers' security reviews block it. Node agents (network, storage, monitoring) are excluded.
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 docker-compose.yml:78 settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| docker-compose.yml | docker-compose.yml:78 — privileged or host namespace |
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.
2 environment files are committed
adequate.env, frontend/.env are tracked in git. Environment files are where credentials usually live, and committing one usually means nobody decided how secrets reach the running application. Whatever is in it is in the history for good. Check 05.1 says whether it holds anything credential-shaped.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| .env | .env — committed environment file |
| frontend/.env | frontend/.env — committed environment file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate25 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day; 8 steps pipe a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/ai-agent-tests.yml | .github/workflows/ai-agent-tests.yml:57 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/ai-agent-tests.yml | .github/workflows/ai-agent-tests.yml:62 — action pinned by tag |
| Dockerfile | Dockerfile:245 — 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.
2 SQL statements built from strings
adequate2 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. In each, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show, not a request's value. Ask whether any value reaches these strings, rather than a parameter.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| python-client/wmill/wmill/client.py | python-client/wmill/wmill/client.py:2581 — SQL built from a string |
| python-client/wmill/wmill/client.py | python-client/wmill/wmill/client.py:2585 — 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.
5 shell commands built from strings
adequate5 places run a command through a shell (`shell=True`, `os.system`, `exec` with a template) rather than passing arguments. Where any part comes from outside, it is command injection. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| backend/overwrite_migrations.py | backend/overwrite_migrations.py:17 — command run through a shell |
| backend/overwrite_migrations.py | backend/overwrite_migrations.py:23 — command run through a shell |
| cli/src/commands/app/new.ts | cli/src/commands/app/new.ts:844 — command run through a shell |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
4 deserialisers that can run code
adequate4 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (`yaml.load` without a safe loader, pickle). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| frontend/src/lib/components/copilot/prompts/yaml2json.py | frontend/src/lib/components/copilot/prompts/yaml2json.py:4 — code-executing deserialiser |
| frontend/src/lib/components/copilot/prompts/yaml2json.py | frontend/src/lib/components/copilot/prompts/yaml2json.py:9 — code-executing deserialiser |
| frontend/src/lib/components/copilot/prompts/yaml2json.py | frontend/src/lib/components/copilot/prompts/yaml2json.py:14 — code-executing deserialiser |
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.
66 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate66 places set HTML from a value that is neither a literal nor passed through a sanitiser. Where the value can come from a user, that is stored cross-site scripting, and it is the first thing a buyer's security review looks for in a frontend.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| frontend/src/lib/components/AppConnectInner.svelte | frontend/src/lib/components/AppConnectInner.svelte:1346 — HTML from a variable |
| frontend/src/lib/components/ContentSearchInner.svelte | frontend/src/lib/components/ContentSearchInner.svelte:266 — HTML from a variable |
| frontend/src/lib/components/ContentSearchInner.svelte | frontend/src/lib/components/ContentSearchInner.svelte:302 — HTML from a variable |
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 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 5 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-10. 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 3 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 1.820.0. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version.
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-2jfj-x8j7-7mfh | 2026-09-10: GHSA-2jfj-x8j7-7mfh (high), fixed in 1.782.0: Under nsjail security sandboxing, DuckDB scripts can escape the fs sandbox and poison shared worker caches for cross-workspace RCE |
| CVE-2026-72539 | 2026-08-11: CVE-2026-72539 (moderate): An information disclosure vulnerability in Windmill Labs Windmill through 1.783.0 allows any authenticated workspace member to read legacy ownerless draft scrip |
| CVE-2026-72541 | 2026-08-11: CVE-2026-72541 (moderate): A missing authorization vulnerability in Windmill Labs Windmill through 1.783.0 allows any authenticated workspace member to overwrite any resource type schema |
| CVE-2026-72542 | 2026-08-11: CVE-2026-72542 (moderate): A missing authorization vulnerability in Windmill Labs Windmill through 1.783.0 allows authenticated operators to write job progress and read job metrics for an |
| GHSA-2ppx-66jv-wpw5 | 2026-06-03: GHSA-2ppx-66jv-wpw5 (low), fixed in 1.715.0: Resource-scoped API tokens can read script contents outside their allowed path via scripts/list_search |
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 error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 of 4 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`
adequate1 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| docker-compose.yml | docker-compose.yml:185 — image without a version |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
10 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 8,504 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 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?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- measured 4,374 commits landed in the last year, against 2,764 the year before (+58%). What drove it: new people, a deadline, or code produced faster than before?
- 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 A threat model is in the tree (backend/THREAT_MODEL.md). Does it name the assets this code actually handles, and is it current against the deployment?
- 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 Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (backend/migrations/20260915091518_ai_sessions_backup_generation.down.sql). Has a restore ever been rehearsed, and how long did it take?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a TypeScript codebase, with Rust alongside (35% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run TypeScript in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in frontend/, backend/, python-client/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- 68% of lines added in the last 12 months (25% of added lines) came through AI-declared commits. Does your organisation have a policy on inheriting and maintaining that code, and does your engineering team's tooling match how it was produced?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 15 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/windmill-labs/windmill/7664001)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 — 84 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 84 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 — 68
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 19,112 · top5 share 0.079 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 217 · per kloc 0.14 · lines read 1,539,322 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.415 · early delete per insert 0.861 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.schema_churn | columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 3 · columns added last year 149 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 4,927 · compat files 0 |
| 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 92 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 1 |
| 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 3 |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 2 |
| 06.environment_branching | environment differences live in configurationsites 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 439 · release commits 1 · changelog commits 440 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 169 · active 12mo 61 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 169 · one off share 0.651 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 169 · top share more than half · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 84 |
| 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 2 · joined 6 · regular last year 16 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 4 · window last 24 months · with tracked 64 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 58 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 1,006 · source 5,728 · test ratio 0.176 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 1,545 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 14,952 · low content share 0.047 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 58 · with tests 8 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 32 · test files 849 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 58 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 14 · recent commits 7,143 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 15 · commits since 3 · days since lockfile changed 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 4 · ci configs 58 · product files 4,927 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.045 · commits 6,082 · over 2000 lines 271 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was merged pull requests, each developed and reviewed on its own branch (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays itlargest commits 90cb116..a7ce548 · bursts explained 2 · largest net added 10,934 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 43,860 · share of insertions 0.0092 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 21.21 · repeat share 0.104 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 8,297 · write once share 0.449 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0144 · product files 4,919 · distinct blocks 733,604 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 1,548,413 · files 34 · per kloc 0.04 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 18 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 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.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 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.source_maps_shipped | production builds do not publish source mapssites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 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 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 2 · files with deprecations 28 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 379 · added in two years 273 · removed within 60 days 7 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | the root licence has not changed in the history readlicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 1.0 · days since last tag -5 · commits last 90 days 1,262 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release, v1.823.0, was made after the surveyed commit on the branch surveyedelsewhere 820 · on branch 721 · tags in window 1,544 |
| 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 — 16
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.test_growth | tests are kept inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 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.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.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for SQL or TypeScript, the languages the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.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 |
| 05.project_advisories | could not tell whether 4 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 8196-AMW7-4ZKD 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/8196AMW74ZKD?via=badge)
A survey is a reading by a particular version of the assessor. Older readings are kept rather than replaced, because a verification mark attests to the survey it was issued for — overwriting one would make every code already in circulation read as tampered.
| Read | Assessor | Findings | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-04 · shown | borehole 0.7.13 | 22 | adequate |
5 earlier (show)
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 22 | adequate |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 22 | adequate |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 22 | adequate |
| 2026-10-01 | borehole 0.7.9 | 22 | adequate |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 22 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 3 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | re-read from the facts kept at the last survey; nothing was cloned | facts version: 1d7c04ef8dca7905 |
| 31.9s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 31.9s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
Total 31.9s ·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).