Borehole · Risk register · free tier

yugabyte/yugabyte-db

Free reading: not for reliance

d52d3e6 · 40,665 commits · 34,140 files
Issued 2026-10-22

Nothing significant. Questions worth asking about Security & Reliability Posture, Product & Engineering Maturity.

103 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. 1 finding is worth checking first. 21 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.

What the repository says about itself

04.62 Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

Worth checking first

Borehole's proprietary scoring is calibrated across hundreds of repositories. Each finding here reads significant, but its check has not yet held up often enough in that calibration to rate significant on its own. If one holds when someone checks it, it is significant.

05.26 61 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 56 high or critical in what ships

What this survey read. This commit may not be the product users run: The newest release, v2.13.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v2.5.3. Read this report as describing that commit, not the release users run. Survey the release branch or tag as well.

Published under today's rules. The verification code attests to this reading as it was stored. This page differs from it as follows.

Words about people are today's: bands rather than exact shares, dates or day counts, and what the history measured rather than why.
3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.

	Dimension	Rating
01	Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance	adequate
02	Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity	strong
03	Organization & Key-Person Risk	strong
04	Product & Engineering Maturity	adequate
05	Security & Reliability Posture	adequate
06	Observability & Operations	strong
07	Fit with the Acquirer	not assessable

strong adequate significant findings not assessable from a repository

Provenance disclosure does not affect any rating

0% of added lines arrived in commits declaring an AI agent as co-author

The surviving-lines measurement was not run on this repository.

1% of lines added in the last 12 months (since 2025-10-22) arrived in AI-declared commits: 93/4,894 commits, confidence low. Also a floor.

94/39,950 commits declaring an agent · Claude, Claude Fable 5, Claude Fable 5.1 and 11 more

confidence: low

4% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
37% of commits show author/committer date divergence, which is the shape of replayed history that can drop trailers

1,921,281 lines excluded as lockfiles, vendored or generated.

This is a lower bound. It counts what the repository declares. Undeclared AI authorship is invisible here, and a single rebase removes the trailers this rests on. Absence of a declaration is absence of disclosure, not absence of AI authorship.

Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance

01 · adequate · ratings ↑

01.25

6 base images float: no version, or `latest`

adequate

6 of 25 `FROM` lines in product Dockerfiles name an image without a version, or with `latest`. Each build pulls whatever the registry serves that day, so the image that ships can change without a commit, and last month's build cannot be reproduced. Pin a version, or a digest.

Evidence

.cursor/Dockerfile	`.cursor/Dockerfile:1` — base image without a version
managed/devops/Dockerfile	`managed/devops/Dockerfile:4` — base image without a version
managed/devops/pex/Dockerfile	`managed/devops/pex/Dockerfile:2` — base image without a version

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.

Notes that do not affect this rating

01.6

src/postgres/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c is 24,041 lines, 253× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 95 lines. 486 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 24,041. 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. Measured against its own codebase's median, it is larger than 94% of 382 surveyed projects' largest files.

A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.

Evidence

line-count	`src/postgres/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c:1` — 24,041 lines (253× median)
line-count	`src/postgres/src/backend/parser/gram.y:1` — 19,833 lines (208× median)
line-count	`src/postgres/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c:1` — 18,554 lines (195× median)
line-count	`managed/src/main/java/prometheus/Types.java:1` — 16,762 lines (176× median)
line-count	`src/postgres/src/backend/utils/adt/ruleutils.c:1` — 13,111 lines (138× 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.

01.33

A move from JavaScript to TypeScript began 73 months ago and is 80% done

adequate

1,529 product files are in the new language and 385 are still in the old one, 73 months after the first new file appeared. The new language's share of the lines rose from 10% to 80%, and moved 3 percentage points in the last year. Two languages for one job doubles what an engineer has to know, and the unmoved half is usually what nobody wants to touch. Ask whether finishing it is planned, and what it costs.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

file counts

385 old, 1529 new

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.

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 ↑

04.3

86 direct dependencies in a single manifest

adequate

managed/ui/package.json declares 86 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.

Evidence

direct-dependencies	`managed/ui/package.json` — 86 declared
direct-dependencies	`yugabyted-ui/ui/package.json` — 35 declared
direct-dependencies	`python/ai/rag_agent/requirements.txt` — 33 declared
direct-dependencies	`requirements.txt` — 25 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.

04.14

2 jobs are each done by more than one library

adequate

Within a single package: UI component kits: material-ui, react-bootstrap; forms: formik, react-hook-form, redux-form. Each duplicate is bundle size, two ways of doing the same thing in one codebase, and two upgrade paths to maintain. It is usually the residue of a migration that stopped halfway.

Evidence

managed/ui/package.json	`managed/ui/package.json` — several libraries per job
troubleshoot/troubleshooting-framework-ui/package.json	`troubleshoot/troubleshooting-framework-ui/package.json` — several libraries per job

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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

04.38

56 files still carry code deprecated more than two years ago

adequate

56 files were marked deprecated over two years ago and still are, the oldest since Dec 2019. A deprecation is a promise to remove. Ask what still depends on these, and whether removing them is scheduled.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

managed/src/main/java/com/yugabyte/yw/models/CustomerTask.java	`managed/src/main/java/com/yugabyte/yw/models/CustomerTask.java` — deprecated since Dec 2019
managed/src/main/java/com/yugabyte/yw/forms/AccessKeyFormData.java	`managed/src/main/java/com/yugabyte/yw/forms/AccessKeyFormData.java` — deprecated since Oct 2020
managed/src/main/java/com/yugabyte/yw/models/AvailabilityZone.java	`managed/src/main/java/com/yugabyte/yw/models/AvailabilityZone.java` — deprecated since Apr 2021
managed/src/main/java/com/yugabyte/yw/forms/UniverseDefinitionTaskParams.java	`managed/src/main/java/com/yugabyte/yw/forms/UniverseDefinitionTaskParams.java` — deprecated since Apr 2021
managed/src/main/java/com/yugabyte/yw/models/Universe.java	`managed/src/main/java/com/yugabyte/yw/models/Universe.java` — deprecated since Apr 2021

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.

04.62

Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

adequate

The newest release, v2.13.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v2.5.3. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.

A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.

Evidence

cd3c1a4bb

tag v2.13.0

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.

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · adequate · ratings ↑

05.6

10 Dockerfiles run the application as root

adequate

No 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.

Evidence

no-USER-instruction	`.cursor/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`managed/devops/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`managed/devops/pex/Dockerfile` — runs as root
no-USER-instruction	`managed/ui/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.

05.26

61 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 56 high or critical in what ships

adequate worth checking first

61 of 1,986 locked dependencies match 160 published advisories in OSV, 84 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 src/postgres/third-party-extensions/postgresql_anonymizer/pg_dump_anon/go.mod and the 2 other files it cites settles it. If it holds when someone checks it, this finding is significant.

Evidence

src/postgres/third-party-extensions/postgresql_anonymizer/pg_dump_anon/go.mod	`src/postgres/third-party-extensions/postgresql_anonymizer/pg_dump_anon/go.mod` — golang.org/x/crypto v0.0.0-20220722155217-630584e8d5aa: GHSA-5cgq-3rg8-m6cv (critical); pinned to a commit or a branch, so whether it has the fix needs the dependency's own source
managed/node-agent/go.mod	`managed/node-agent/go.mod` — google.golang.org/grpc v1.77.0: GHSA-p77j-4mvh-x3m3 (critical), fixed in 1.79.3
managed/ui/package-lock.json	`managed/ui/package-lock.json` — jspdf 2.5.1: GHSA-f8cm-6447-x5h2 (critical), fixed in 4.0.0

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.

05.45

1 workload setting can give a container the host, behind a chart value or in a stack built from source

adequate

1 places run a container privileged or in the host's namespaces only when a Helm value switches them on, or in a compose file that builds the product from this repository, which is how it is developed rather than how it ships. Neither is on by default in what ships. Ask whether production sets the value or runs that stack.

Evidence

src/odyssey/docker-compose-test.yml src/odyssey/docker-compose-test.yml:9 — host access behind a setting or in a local stack

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.

05.10

Licence text does not match a standard licence

adequate

LICENSE.md exists but its text does not match any standard licence. A bespoke or hand-edited licence is not wrong, but it cannot be cleared by recognising its name: counsel has to read it, and until they do neither side knows precisely what rights transfer with the code.

Evidence

LICENSE.md LICENSE.md:1 — 44 lines, unrecognised

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.

Notes that do not affect this rating

05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

12 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; 1 step pipes a download straight into a shell. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.

A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.

Evidence

src/odyssey/.github/workflows/clang-format.yml	`src/odyssey/.github/workflows/clang-format.yml:8` — action pinned by tag
src/odyssey/.github/workflows/cmake.yml	`src/odyssey/.github/workflows/cmake.yml:51` — action pinned by tag
bin/configure_clockbound.sh	`bin/configure_clockbound.sh: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.

05.13

12 outbound calls can wait forever

adequate

12 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

managed/devops/opscli/ybops/cloud/azure/utils.py	`managed/devops/opscli/ybops/cloud/azure/utils.py:105` — outbound call without a timeout
managed/devops/opscli/ybops/cloud/azure/utils.py	`managed/devops/opscli/ybops/cloud/azure/utils.py:1231` — outbound call without a timeout
managed/devops/opscli/ybops/cloud/gcp/utils.py	`managed/devops/opscli/ybops/cloud/gcp/utils.py:925` — outbound call without a timeout

Respond to this finding

Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.

05.20

1 SQL statement built from strings

adequate

1 places in product code build SQL by formatting or joining strings rather than passing parameters. 1 of them put a value into the string; in the rest, what the code shows going in is a table or column name, a constant, or something the line does not show. 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.

Evidence

managed/src/main/java/com/yugabyte/yw/common/TableSpaceUtil.java managed/src/main/java/com/yugabyte/yw/common/TableSpaceUtil.java:63 — 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.

05.21

9 shell commands built from strings

adequate

9 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.

Evidence

managed/devops/bin/add_superadmin_user.py	`managed/devops/bin/add_superadmin_user.py:83` — command run through a shell
managed/devops/bin/add_superadmin_user.py	`managed/devops/bin/add_superadmin_user.py:132` — command run through a shell
managed/devops/bin/edit_universe_details.py	`managed/devops/bin/edit_universe_details.py:81` — 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.

05.22

3 deserialisers that can run code

adequate

3 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (`yaml.load` without a safe loader). 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.

Evidence

managed/devops/bin/remove_leaf_yaml_nodes.py	`managed/devops/bin/remove_leaf_yaml_nodes.py:29` — code-executing deserialiser
managed/devops/opscli/ybops/cloud/common/cloud.py	`managed/devops/opscli/ybops/cloud/common/cloud.py:148` — code-executing deserialiser
managed/devops/opscli/ybops/cloud/common/cloud.py	`managed/devops/opscli/ybops/cloud/common/cloud.py:154` — 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.

05.34

3 of 3 Kubernetes workloads declare no resource limits

adequate

3 workload manifests set no CPU or memory limits. One pod that leaks memory or spins can starve everything else on its node, and the scheduler cannot plan capacity for what it cannot see.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

cloud/kubernetes/yugabyte-statefulset-local-ssd-gke.yaml	`cloud/kubernetes/yugabyte-statefulset-local-ssd-gke.yaml` — workload with no limits
cloud/kubernetes/yugabyte-statefulset-rf-1.yaml	`cloud/kubernetes/yugabyte-statefulset-rf-1.yaml` — workload with no limits
cloud/kubernetes/yugabyte-statefulset.yaml	`cloud/kubernetes/yugabyte-statefulset.yaml` — workload with no limits

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.

05.48

4 places insert HTML from a variable without sanitising it

adequate

4 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.

Evidence

managed/ui/src/components/Authenticated/AuthenticatedComponent.jsx	`managed/ui/src/components/Authenticated/AuthenticatedComponent.jsx:160` — HTML from a variable
managed/ui/src/components/universes/UniverseDetail/compounds/StateTransitionDetails.tsx	`managed/ui/src/components/universes/UniverseDetail/compounds/StateTransitionDetails.tsx:109` — HTML from a variable
managed/ui/src/helpers/Highlighter.jsx	`managed/ui/src/helpers/Highlighter.jsx:21` — 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.

Observability & Operations

06 · strong · ratings ↑

Notes that do not affect this rating

06.9

No error reporter is wired in

adequate

Nothing 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.

Evidence

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.

06.18

1 of 2 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`

adequate

1 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.

Evidence

cloud/kubernetes/yugabyte-statefulset.yaml cloud/kubernetes/yugabyte-statefulset.yaml:234 — 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.

06.33

1 of 3 deployments run a single replica

adequate

1 deployments set `replicas: 1`, and nothing (an autoscaler, a disruption budget) adds more. Every deploy and every node drain is downtime, and the availability the buyer inherits has a ceiling.

A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.

Evidence

cloud/kubernetes/yugabyte-statefulset-rf-1.yaml cloud/kubernetes/yugabyte-statefulset-rf-1.yaml — replicas: 1

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.

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. See the tiers.

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 18,801 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it? Answer lives in: The team01.38
Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product? Answer lives in: Your architects, with the product roadmap01.39
Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now? Answer lives in: The team's reasoning at the time01.40

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. Answer lives in: The code host's pull request data02.32
Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic? Answer lives in: The issue tracker: backlog, sprint history, estimate accuracy02.38
How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from? Answer lives in: Tickets, chat and postmortems02.37

Organization & Key-Person Risk

03 · partial coverage

measured 970 people have committed here. Which of them are you acquiring, and which are you replacing? Answer lives in: The deal terms03.29
measured community/ (less than a quarter of the files) has not changed in 18 months while the rest of the repository moved. Is that code finished, or abandoned, and who still knows how it works? Answer lives in: The team03.22
Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure? Answer lives in: The team; review history only suggests candidates03.28
Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors? Answer lives in: Recruiting data and the org chart03.30
Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands? Answer lives in: HR data03.31
Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time. Answer lives in: Interviews and on-call history03.14
Does the team want to stay after close? Answer lives in: Interviews03.32
How are decisions made and disagreements resolved? Answer lives in: Time with the team03.33

Product & Engineering Maturity

04 · minimal coverage

Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline? Answer lives in: The data room and the team's record of estimates04.32
Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it? Answer lives in: Budget and roadmap decisions04.31
Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story? Answer lives in: Revenue, customer and churn data04.33

Security & Reliability Posture

05 · partial coverage

measured 05.5 found credential-shaped strings in this repository. Was each one revoked at the provider? Deleting it from the code revokes nothing; only the provider's audit log shows that it was. Answer lives in: The provider's console and audit log05.38
measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it? Answer lives in: The security owner05.43
What has actually broken, how often, and how badly? Answer lives in: Ticketing and chat05.41
What did external testing find, and was it fixed? Answer lives in: Reports in the data room05.42
What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence? Answer lives in: Audit reports; policy files in the tree are not evidence05.44

Observability & Operations

06 · partial coverage

measured Backup or restore tooling is in the tree (managed/devops/bin/yb_platform_backup.sh). Has a restore ever been rehearsed, and how long did it take? Answer lives in: The operations team06.19
measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire? Answer lives in: The alerting tool and the on-call rota06.10
Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered? Answer lives in: Pager history and dashboard logs06.29
Are the service-level objectives actually met? Answer lives in: Production metrics06.30
Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off? Answer lives in: Pager exports and interviews06.31
What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there? Answer lives in: Cloud billing and capacity plans06.32

Fit with the Acquirer

07 · none coverage

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.

This is primarily a C codebase, with Java alongside (19% of source files). Does your engineering organisation already run C in production, or would this be the first? 07.1
The bulk of this system sits in src/, managed/, java/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace? 07.10
The repository carries deployment configuration (.claude/Dockerfile and 40 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first? 07.2
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? Answer lives in: Your architecture07.11
What will integration cost, and in what order? Answer lives in: The engagement07.12
Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom? Answer lives in: Your org design07.13
Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign? Answer lives in: Deal terms07.14
Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors? Answer lives in: Customer contracts07.15

Request a human assessment Download JSON Badge PDF

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.

[![Borehole](/badge/yugabyte/yugabyte-db.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](/r/yugabyte/yugabyte-db/d52d3e6)

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 — 82 signals that ran and did not fire

Appendix: rejection log — 82 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 — 65

Signal	What it found
04.hotspot_concentration	change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 88,494 · top5 share 0.011
04.debt_markers	debt markers are sparsemarkers 1,662 · per kloc 0.69 · lines read 2,413,579
04.test_growth	test effort kept pace with code writtenlate test per code 0.203 · early test per code 0.237
04.churn_trend	rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.311 · early delete per insert 0.28
04.eol_runtime	every pinned runtime is still supportedeol as of 2026-09-24
04.fixes_with_tests	fixes usually come with a testfixes 2,051 · share 0.404 · with tests 829
04.fix_share_trend	fixing is not crowding out building
04.schema_churn	columns, once added, staydropped within 90 days 0 · columns added last year 14
04.compat_layers	little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 14,498 · compat files 7
06.telemetry_presence	a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 109
06.healthcheck_presence	a health or readiness check is defined
06.telemetry_depth	the service is visible in more than one way
06.usage_reporting_default	the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 10 · settings off 42
06.release_markers	releases are markedtags last year 3,165 · release commits 3 · changelog commits 25
06.migrate_on_start	migrations do not run at container start
03.contributor_concentration	no single contributor dominates the last 24 monthsyears 21.3 · window last 24 months · authors 970
03.active_contributors	more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 970 · active 12mo 184
03.knowledge_silos	every substantial directory has been touched by more than one personauthors 970 · directories 15
03.drive_by_contributors	an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 970 · one off share 0.344
03.contributor_attrition	no contributor dominates enough for their absence to matterauthors 970 · top share less than a quarter · top contributor last committed within the last three months
03.critical_path_ownership	more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 311
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 54 · joined 43 · regular last year 127
02.merge_discipline	a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 14 · window last 24 months · with tracked 551
02.ci_presence	CI configuration is present in the working treecount 71
02.test_presence	tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 4,069 · source 18,285 · test ratio 0.223
02.release_cadence	tags are presenttags 6,177
02.conventional_commits	commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 39,950 · low content share 0.005
02.branch_protection_hints	process scaffolding is present in the repository
02.ci_runs_tests	CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 71 · with tests 16
02.skipped_tests	few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 0 · test files 7,029
02.ci_test_gating	no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 71
02.revert_share	change is rarely undoneshare 0.002 · reverts 25 · recent commits 10,076
02.dependency_update_cadence	dependencies move with the codelockfiles 19 · commits since 236 · days since lockfile changed 10
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 24 · ci configs 71 · product files 14,498
02.commit_size	changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.027 · commits 9,002 · over 2000 lines 242
01.burst_import	no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000
01.initial_dump	first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 407 · share of insertions 0.0
01.message_uniformity	commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 27.36 · repeat share 0.039
01.revision_depth	most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 16,020 · write once share 0.259
01.duplicated_blocks	little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0174 · product files 7,174 · distinct blocks 1,421,778
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 7,892
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.credentials_in_deploy_config	deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0
05.source_maps_shipped	production builds do not publish source mapssites 0
05.signing_material	no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0
05.license_vendored_unlicensed	all 13 vendored components state their terms, in a licence file, their own headers or a notices filecomponents 13 · stated in headers or notices 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.dependency_churn	few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 345 · added in two years 197 · removed within 60 days 3
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 0.0 · days since last tag 0 · commits last 90 days 1,637
03.single_maintainer	no file says one person maintains itstatements 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 — 17

Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.

Signal	Why
06.structured_logging	not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
06.print_logging	a frontend: console output is the browser's, not the server's
06.correlation_ids	not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
06.alert_rules	no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console
06.probes_identical	readiness and liveness are distinct, or not both set
06.environment_branching	not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
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.swallowed_errors	not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
01.notebook_outputs	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.migration_reversibility	too few migrations to judge
05.public_env_secret	not assessed for C, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only
05.cleartext_traffic	not a mobile app
05.dataset_provenance	not a data or machine-learning repository
05.license_manifest_conflict	no packaging manifest states a licence
04.flags_accumulating	few or no feature flags in the history
05.project_advisories	could not tell whether 1 published advisory affects the surveyed code: its version is only known to be at least 2.5.3

Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter FPP9-GHRN-CD5T 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.

[![Borehole reading, not a certification](https://borehole.dev/badge/yugabyte/yugabyte-db/d52d3e6.svg "Borehole free reading: not for reliance. See the full report.")](https://borehole.dev/verify/FPP9GHRNCD5T?via=badge)

Where this scan ran

This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.

What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.

What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps

Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.

At	Step	Detail
0.0s	read repository metadata from the GitHub API	size mb: 1109.0authenticated: False
158.1s	cloned the repository to a temporary directory	depth: full
308.9s	read the git history	commits: 40665tracked files: 34140
879.4s	ran the deterministic checks	blame pass: Falseread working tree: False
879.5s	recorded where this scan ran	attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run
1248.8s	kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks
1248.8s	deleting the working copy

Total 1248.8s ·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).

BOREHOLE 0.7.15 DETERMINISTIC LAYER · NO MODEL CALLSREAD ON BOREHOLE'S SERVER · CLONE DELETED TAKEDOWNCONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPOSITORY? YOUR RIGHTS