Check a mark
A Borehole code resolves to the analysis we actually ran. Type the code printed on a report and this page re-renders the authoritative version — not a claim about it.
Twelve characters. Case and dashes do not matter.
Verified
This code matches a Borehole analysis of go-gitea/gitea, and the record is unchanged since the mark was issued.
- Repository
- go-gitea/gitea
- Commit
- 9e7b302bd315eab9ecb4798203daf511a123c2aa
- Surveyed
- 2026-10-03
- Mark issued
- 2026-10-03
- Assessor
- borehole 0.7.12
- Checks run
- 106
- Ran in
- cloud-run — not attested
This commit has been surveyed again since this mark was issued. The mark above is still valid — it attests to the survey it was issued for, and always will. But a newer reading of the same commit exists, made by borehole 0.7.13 on 2026-10-04, finding 12 things against this one's 12. Read the newer one.
Its report page publishes this analysis under today's rules. The mark above still attests to the record as issued. The page differs from it as follows, and its headline band reads strong.
- 3 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
What the analysis recorded
| Dimension | Band | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | 1 |
| Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | 0 |
| Organization & Key-Person Risk | strong | 0 |
| Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | 2 |
| Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | 8 |
| Observability & Operations | strong | 1 |
| Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable | 0 |