8c86034 · 1,201 commits · 7,362 files
Issued 2026-11-07
AGPL-3.0 since 2026-09-25: open source; offering it over a network counts as distributing it, so a hosted product's changes must be published.
103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 15 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer. Last commit 28 October 2026.
- 05.60 AGPL-3.0 since 2026-09-25: open source; offering it over a network counts as distributing it, so a hosted product's changes must be published
- 05.60 Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → AGPL-3.0 AND a commercial licence (2026-08-29) → AGPL-3.0 (2026-09-25) LICENSE
- 1 submodule(s) this survey does not read: docs .gitmodules:1
Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here may be significant, and 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.
- 05.20 147 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 | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | |
| 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 |
- 5% 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 ↑worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/models/dom/model.js is 8,041 lines, 121× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 66 lines. 76 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 8,041. 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 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/models/dom/model.js:1 — 8,041 lines (121× median) |
| line-count | worklenz-backend/database/sql/4_functions.sql:1 — 7,605 lines (115× median) |
| line-count | worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/plugins/table/plugin.js:1 — 3,463 lines (52× median) |
| line-count | worklenz-frontend/src/pages/projects/projectView/gantt/components/gantt-chart/GanttChart.tsx:1 — 3,258 lines (49× median) |
| line-count | worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/tinymce.d.ts:1 — 3,239 lines (49× 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.
3% of code blocks appear verbatim in more than one file
adequate13,525 distinct 8-line blocks appear in two or more files. Copy-paste is the cheapest thing a generator does and among the more expensive things to inherit: a fix has to be applied everywhere the block landed, and nothing in the repository records where that is. Tests, fixtures and documentation examples are excluded — those repeat by design — so this is duplication in code that ships. Blocks are matched after normalising whitespace and only across different files.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 18 files: worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/models/dom/model.js, worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/plugins/accordion/plugin.js, worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/plugins/autolink/plugin.js |
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 18 files: worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/models/dom/model.js, worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/plugins/accordion/plugin.js, worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/plugins/autolink/plugin.js |
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 18 files: worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/models/dom/model.js, worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/plugins/accordion/plugin.js, worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/plugins/autolink/plugin.js |
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 18 files: worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/models/dom/model.js, worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/plugins/accordion/plugin.js, worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/plugins/autolink/plugin.js |
| duplicated-block | identical 8-line block in 18 files: worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/models/dom/model.js, worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/plugins/accordion/plugin.js, worklenz-backend/src/public/tinymce/plugins/autolink/plugin.js |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · adequate · ratings ↑Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase
adequate309 test files against 4,186 source files (7.4%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.
| test-file-ratio | 309 test files / 4,186 source files |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
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 773 non-merge commits among 25 authors; across all history, more than half of 793. 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 773 commits; bus factor 1; 25 authors |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The next contributor after the top one has not committed here for more than a year
adequateThe #2 contributor of the last three years (less than a quarter of the commits) has not committed here for more than a year, while the repository is still active. These are the people a buyer assumes would step up if the top contributor stopped. The history shows only that no commits of theirs landed here, not why.
| git shortlog -sn | the #2 contributor of the last three years (less than a quarter of the commits) has not committed here for more than a year |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
1 of 5 major areas has only ever had one author
adequateAcross 30 contributors, 1 substantial top-level area has been touched by exactly one person. The headline bus factor does not show this: a team can look well spread in aggregate and still have subsystems that stop moving the day one person stops working on them. For these areas, ask who else can change them today.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| sole-author | security/ — 796 lines added |
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 ↑19% of bug fixes add or change a test
adequateOf 154 fixes in the last 24 months, 29 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 | 29 of 154 |
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 ↑3 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 | worklenz-backend/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | worklenz-client-portal/Dockerfile — runs as root |
| no-USER-instruction | worklenz-frontend/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.
147 SQL statements built from strings
adequate worth checking first147 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters, and in 28 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 worklenz-backend/src/controllers/client-portal/client-portal-invoices-controller.ts:630 and the 1 other file it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.
| worklenz-backend/src/controllers/client-portal/client-portal-invoices-controller.ts | worklenz-backend/src/controllers/client-portal/client-portal-invoices-controller.ts:630 — SQL built from a string |
| worklenz-backend/src/controllers/client-portal/client-portal-invoices-controller.ts | worklenz-backend/src/controllers/client-portal/client-portal-invoices-controller.ts:1594 — SQL built from a string |
| worklenz-backend/src/controllers/client-portal/client-portal-quotes-controller.ts | worklenz-backend/src/controllers/client-portal/client-portal-quotes-controller.ts:360 — 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 production build publishes source maps
adequateThe build configuration emits source maps for production, so the original source, with its comments and structure, is downloadable by every visitor. Upload them to an error tracker and keep them off the public server instead.
| worklenz-client-portal/vite.config.ts | worklenz-client-portal/vite.config.ts:23 — source maps in a production build |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Relicensed: AGPL-3.0 → AGPL-3.0 AND a commercial licence (2026-08-29) → AGPL-3.0 (2026-09-25)
adequateThe root licence changed 2 time(s). The last change widened rights. Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
| 67696d6f9 | LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 from 2024-05-16 |
| eac54d002 | LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 AND a commercial licence from 2026-08-29 |
| 2643e4d8f | LICENSE — AGPL-3.0 from 2026-09-25 |
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
adequate3 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. 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/build-images.yaml | .github/workflows/build-images.yaml:33 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/build-images.yaml | .github/workflows/build-images.yaml:41 — action pinned by tag |
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.
77 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it
adequate77 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.
| worklenz-backend/src/public/31.b9d7263dff6a2005.js | worklenz-backend/src/public/31.b9d7263dff6a2005.js:1 — HTML from a variable |
| worklenz-backend/src/public/31.b9d7263dff6a2005.js | worklenz-backend/src/public/31.b9d7263dff6a2005.js:1 — HTML from a variable |
| worklenz-backend/src/public/31.b9d7263dff6a2005.js | worklenz-backend/src/public/31.b9d7263dff6a2005.js:1 — 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.
4 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical
adequateThe newest was published on 2026-09-03. 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 3.3.1. 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.
| CVE-2026-85388 | 2026-09-03: CVE-2026-85388 (high): Worklenz through 3.0.0 fails to properly validate the sort-field query parameter in pagination helper functions, allowing authenticated users to inject arbitrar |
| CVE-2026-85389 | 2026-09-03: CVE-2026-85389 (high): Worklenz before 3.0.0 fails to verify task ownership by organization when resolving task-scoped API endpoints, allowing authenticated users to access another te |
| GHSA-f2f8-2ppj-85pf | 2026-02-10: GHSA-f2f8-2ppj-85pf (high), fixed in v2.1.7: Boolean-Based Blind SQL Injection via Improper ORDER BY Clause Input Validation |
| CVE-2025-70368 | 2026-01-26: CVE-2025-70368 (moderate): Worklenz version 2.1.5 contains a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Project Updates feature. An attacker can submit a malicious payload in |
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 ↑The code branches on the environment's name at 49 places
adequate49 places outside configuration test whether they are running in production or staging. Staging then does not exercise production's code, and each deploy is the first run of those branches. Differences belong in configuration the code reads, not in the code.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| worklenz-backend/src/app.ts | worklenz-backend/src/app.ts:23 — branch on the environment name |
| worklenz-backend/src/app.ts | worklenz-backend/src/app.ts:112 — branch on the environment name |
| worklenz-backend/src/app.ts | worklenz-backend/src/app.ts:150 — branch on the environment name |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
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 (DESIGN.md). Does it match what the team believes today? Ask them to walk through it against the code.
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- 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 239 commits landed in the last year, against 534 the year before (-55%). Is that maintenance mode, a pivot, or fewer people working on it? The count looks the same for all three.
- 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 Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (backup.sh). 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 JavaScript 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 worklenz-frontend/, worklenz-backend/, worklenz-client-portal/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (docker-compose.yml and 3 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/worklenz/worklenz/8c86034)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 — 88 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 88 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 — 71
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 10,295 · top5 share 0.009 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 30 · per kloc 0.04 · lines read 820,209 |
| 04.dependency_sprawl | direct dependency counts are unremarkable |
| 04.test_growth | test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.1 · early test per code 0.021 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.324 · early delete per insert 0.222 |
| 04.eol_runtime | every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24 |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.001 · code files 3,914 · compat files 3 |
| 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 8 |
| 06.structured_logging | a structured logging library is referencedmatches 2 |
| 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 False · request id sites 66 |
| 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 1 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 7 · floating 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 15 · release commits 0 · changelog commits 1 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 30 · active 12mo 15 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | a healthy share of contributors committed more than onceshare 0.3 · authors 30 · one commit authors 9 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 30 · 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 25 |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | the team is not shrinkingleft 5 · joined 9 · regular last year 11 |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 366 · window last 24 months · with tracked 1 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 3 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 28 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 824 · low content share 0.002 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 3 · test files 310 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 3 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.0 · reverts 0 · recent commits 773 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 5 · commits since 4 · days since lockfile changed 5 |
| 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 3 · ci configs 3 · product files 3,914 |
| 02.long_lived_branches | the typical branch reaches the trunk quicklyshare 0.154 · merges 91 · long lived 14 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.047 · commits 741 · over 2000 lines 35 |
| 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 itlargest commits 3565400..69aaf2e · bursts explained 1 · largest net added 2,636 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 1,066 · share of insertions 0.0008 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.43 · repeat share 0.03 |
| 01.swallowed_errors | errors are rarely thrown awayloc 825,246 · files 20 · per kloc 0.1 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 6 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | JavaScript to TypeScript: the new language's share has not risen steadily, so the two are deliberate layers, not a migrationmigration JavaScript to TypeScript · new share now 0.773 · new share at start 0.896 |
| 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 6,212 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_in_history | no credential-shaped string was ever added outside test and fixture pathspatterns 8 · truncated False · added lines 1,281,124 |
| 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 0 |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | no code-executing deserialiser in product codesites 0 |
| 05.tls_verification_off | no TLS verification is switched off in product codefiles 0 · sites 0 · pinned instead 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.public_env_secret | only publishable values carry a public prefixnames 0 · sites 0 · not secrets 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | the project is itself AGPL-3.0, so copyleft components carry no obligation it has not already acceptedown license AGPL-3.0 · copyleft components 1 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0 |
| 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 0 · files with deprecations 2 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 199 · added in two years 102 · removed within 60 days 1 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 05.paid_edition | no directory carries a separate paid-edition licencedirectories 0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 13.0 · days since last tag 1 · commits last 90 days 353 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 7 · on branch 20 · tags in window 27 |
| 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 — 17
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.fix_share_trend | fewer than six busy quarters to compare |
| 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.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for TypeScript or JavaScript or TSX, 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 3 published advisories affect the surveyed code: its version could not be placed |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter WTF2-E92P-RYFT 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/WTF2E92PRYFT?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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-11-07 · shown | borehole 0.7.16 | 18 | adequate |
1 earlier (show)
| 2026-10-28 | borehole 0.7.15 | 17 | adequate |
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 34.2authenticated: False |
| 6.5s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 10.2s | read the git history | commits: 1201tracked files: 7362 |
| 240.1s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Falseread working tree: False |
| 240.2s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 418.1s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 418.1s | deleting the working copy |
Total 418.1s ·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).