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 jesseduffield/lazygit, and the record is unchanged since the mark was issued.
- Repository
- jesseduffield/lazygit
- Commit
- a82c0d012239a8f4eb01089349f382ee7d71d865
- Surveyed
- 2026-09-27
- Mark issued
- 2026-09-27
- Assessor
- borehole 0.7.3
- Checks run
- 101
- 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 adequate.
- 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.
This mark covers 101 checks. Borehole now runs 106. A mark attests to the survey that was run, not to the checks written since it was issued. If the newer checks matter to you, ask for a fresh repo survey at this commit.
What the analysis recorded
| Dimension | Band | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | adequate | 1 |
| Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate | 1 |
| Organization & Key-Person Risk | not assessable | 1 |
| Product & Engineering Maturity | adequate | 2 |
| Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | 2 |
| Observability & Operations | adequate | 5 |
| Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable | 0 |