4ce650b · 50,000 commits · 6,401 files
Issued 2026-10-01
Reads strong: 3 of 5 rated dimensions are strong, 2 are adequate and none is significant.
105 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. Product & Engineering Maturity and Security & Reliability Posture are adequate. 3 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
- 1 finding from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right is no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | not assessable | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 2% 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 · strong · ratings ↑WordPress/Classes/ViewRelated/Aztec/ViewControllers/AztecPostViewController.swift is 3,742 lines, 50× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 74 lines. 22 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 3,742. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 305 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | WordPress/Classes/ViewRelated/Aztec/ViewControllers/AztecPostViewController.swift:1 — 3,742 lines (50× median) |
| line-count | WordPress/Classes/ViewRelated/Notifications/Controllers/NotificationsViewController/NotificationsViewController.swift:1 — 2,260 lines (30× median) |
| line-count | WordPress/Classes/Utility/Analytics/WPAnalyticsEvent.swift:1 — 2,134 lines (28× median) |
| line-count | WordPress/Classes/ViewRelated/Reader/Controllers/ReaderStreamViewController.swift:1 — 1,898 lines (25× median) |
| line-count | WordPress/Classes/ViewRelated/Blog/Blog Details/BlogDetailsTableViewModel.swift:1 — 1,693 lines (22× 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 ↑Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed
adequateThe newest release, 27.3, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is 25.0. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too. This was read from the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) only; older history was not read.
| cbe222b82 | tag 27.3 |
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 ↑The app allows plain HTTP to any server
adequateThe app's manifest allows unencrypted HTTP app-wide (NSAllowsArbitraryLoads, or cleartext traffic permitted), rather than for named domains. Anything sent over plain HTTP can be read on the network, and enterprise security reviews ask about it. Some apps need it by nature (a podcast or feed reader fetches whatever URL a feed gives), so ask which case this is.
| Sources/Jetpack/Info.plist | Sources/Jetpack/Info.plist:583 — cleartext allowed app-wide |
| Sources/WordPress/Info.plist | Sources/WordPress/Info.plist:508 — cleartext allowed app-wide |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: only 4 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it. What a person adds here.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
1 check 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 5,112 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 157 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- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverageNot rated: only 4 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
- measured Service-level objectives are defined in the tree (WordPress/Misc/Lottie/JetpackAllFeaturesLogosAnimation_ltr.json). Are they met? The repository holds the target, not the measurement.
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- 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 Swift codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Swift in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in WordPress/, Modules/, Sources/. 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/wordpress-mobile/wordpress-ios/4ce650b)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 — 102 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 102 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 — 62
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few files, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026)files 21,729 · top5 share 0.098 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 197 · per kloc 0.36 · lines read 554,404 |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code written, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) · late test per code 0.276 · early test per code 0.14 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new work, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) · late delete per insert 0.733 · early delete per insert 0.703 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 248 · share 0.202 · with tests 50 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 06.telemetry_presence | this repository does not deploy a running service, so instrumentation is not expected of itbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere · files read 5,140 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | not a running service, so a health endpoint is not expectedbasis nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.contributor_concentration | no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthswindow last 24 months · authors 157 · top share a quarter or more |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 28 |
| 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 3 · joined 4 · regular last year 11 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 7 · window last 24 months · with tracked 7 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 46 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 689 · source 3,616 · test ratio 0.191 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry content, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026)sampled 37,518 · history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) · low content share 0.011 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 46 · with tests 1 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 1,157 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 46 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.005 · reverts 7 · recent commits 1,432 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 1 · commits since 30 · days since lockfile changed 3 |
| 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 1 · ci configs 46 · product files 2,927 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.031 · commits 1,223 · over 2000 lines 38 |
| 01.burst_import | the largest burst was a branch merged by a merge commit, developed on its own branch and landed in one piece (100% of it), which explains the rate: translations arrive from a vendor in bulk, dependencies and generated code are committed whole, a merged pull request is dated when it merged, not when it was written, a branch merged by a merge commit was reviewed as one piece, and an export or mirror tool dates history when it replays it, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) · largest commits c030d0f..8f81ede · bursts explained 1 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and length, in the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026)history read the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) · length stdev 27.31 · repeat share 0.182 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0077 · product files 2,927 · distinct blocks 262,978 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 559,375 · 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 5,140 |
| 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.supply_chain_pinning | third-party build steps are pinned, or fewaction refs 4 · pipe to shell 0 · unpinned third party 2 |
| 05.shell_from_strings | product code does not build shell commands from stringssites 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.known_vulnerabilities | no locked dependency has a published advisory; not assessed for Swift Package Manageradvisories 0 · dependencies 157 · 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.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 4 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as GPL-2.0class strong-copyleft · license GPL-2.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 22 · added in two years 3 · removed within 60 days 0 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.licence_changes | no release carried a different root licence; 1 change no release contained set asidelicence versions 1 · unreleased changes 1 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 5.0 · days since last tag -3 · commits last 90 days 245 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
| 05.project_advisories | no published advisory affects the surveyed versionaffecting 0 · exploited 0 · advisories 0 |
| 05.advisory_record | no advisory against the project in the last 24 monthscritical 0 · affecting 0 · could not tell 0 |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited listexploited 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 40
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no recognised dependency manifest found |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.compat_layers | a library, whose compatibility code is usually deliberate |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Swift, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.telemetry_depth | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.print_logging | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.correlation_ids | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.error_reporting | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.alert_rules | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.release_markers | not expected of it: nothing in this repository deploys a long-running server; if it runs as one, its deployment lives elsewhere |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.active_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.knowledge_silos | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 03.contributor_attrition | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 02.release_cadence | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.initial_dump | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 01.revision_depth | not assessed: this check needs the whole history, and only the most recent 50,000 commits (21 Feb 2018 to 25 Sep 2026) were read |
| 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 a running service |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not a running service; a library that builds SQL is doing its job |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for Swift, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.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 | not a running service |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | a library, which keeps deprecated interfaces for its users |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter PZNN-SQJH-KR7R 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/PZNNSQJHKR7R?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-01 · shown | borehole 0.7.9 | 4 | strong |
15 other readings (show)
| 2026-10-04 | borehole 0.7.13 | 4 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.12 | 4 | strong |
| 2026-10-03 | borehole 0.7.11 | 4 | strong |
| 2026-10-02 | borehole 0.7.10 | 4 | strong |
| 2026-09-30 | borehole 0.7.8 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.6 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-29 | borehole 0.7.5 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-28 | borehole 0.7.4 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.3 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.2 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-27 | borehole 0.7.1 | 4 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.7.0 | 4 | strong |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.3 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-26 | borehole 0.6.2 | 6 | adequate |
| 2026-09-25 | borehole 0.6.1 | 3 | strong |
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: 9308f48b62c9dddf |
| 17.3s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 17.3s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
Total 17.3s ·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).