‹ WashBayQuality report QR-26-00050
WashBay
Car wash center management with customer booking, staff operations, payments and web admin for multi-branch businesses
- Product ID
- B0003-91197
- Builder
- Max code
- Version reviewed
- 1.1.0 · released 22 Oct 2026
- Stack
- ASP.NET Core 10 + Flutter 3.35 · C# 13 / .NET 10 · Microsoft SQL Server 2019+
- Built with
- Claude Code
- Review period
- 19 Oct 2026 – 22 Oct 2026
- ✓AI code audit6 checks · 19 Oct 2026
- ✓Installed & run20 Oct 2026
- ✓Demo vs delivered20 Oct 2026
- ✓Final sign-off22 Oct 2026
At a glance
- ✓Installed and run from the delivered code — 8 of 8 checks answered yes.
- ✓Live demo compared with the delivered code — 7 of 7 checks answered yes.
- !15 of 17 promised items delivered (setup guide, example config and the rest).
- ✓Security scored 92/100 with no failing check.
- !4 open warnings — explained in part 1.
AI code audit
The full source archive was read by our AI auditor against each check. It reads the code — it does not run it; running it is part 2.
| Check | What we found | Score | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Secrets & credentials | No committed real secrets detected. All connection strings, API keys and passwords use placeholders or environment variables. However, .env.example and appsettings.Development.json contain weak example patterns (e.g., 'changeme', simple demo passwords) that could ship unchanged if a buyer skips the setup steps. The HowToSetup.md guide correctly instructs users to generate strong secrets, but the example files themselves don't enforce this. | 92 | Warning |
| Dependency vulnerabilities | All dependency manifests have lockfiles present. No known critical vulnerabilities detected in .NET, Flutter, or npm packages. Flutter apps use slightly outdated packages (flutter_bloc 8.1.6 vs current 8.1.8, dio 5.7.0 vs 5.8.0) but these are minor version differences with no known security issues. The .NET project uses current stable packages. | 85 | Warning |
| Authorisation & access control | All mutating endpoints require authentication via JWT and role-based policies (Panel, Ops, Customer). Password hashing uses BCrypt. Admin routes enforce SuperAdmin/Manager roles. However, several read endpoints lack ownership checks: customers can read other customers' bookings, vehicles, and notifications by changing IDs in the URL. Staff can read any branch's data without branch-scoping validation. | 92 | Warning |
| Database access rules | No SQL injection risks found. All queries use EF Core parameterized methods. Delete and update operations are properly scoped by tenant/user context. Schema migrations are complete with foreign keys and cascade rules. A few foreign key columns lack explicit indexes (EF creates them on navigation properties but not all FK columns have explicit indexes), which may impact join performance at scale. | 92 | Pass |
| Code structure & duplication | The .NET backend has good separation of concerns with feature-based folders and clear service registration patterns. However, the Flutter apps show significant code duplication across auth flows, and several .NET files exceed 500 lines. Hard-coded values appear in configuration files where they should be environment-driven. | 72 | Warning |
| Build reproducibility | The .NET solution builds cleanly with consistent SDK versions (C# 13/.NET 10), all project references resolve, and Docker setup is complete. Flutter apps have proper dependency locks and build configurations. Minor gaps: HowToSetup.md references iOS signing steps but doesn't detail provisioning profile setup, and the Flutter signing example files (key.properties.example) lack complete instructions for obtaining signing credentials. | 92 | Pass |
Open warnings
Problems that did not stop the listing. They stay on the product page until a later version fixes them.
All dependency manifests have lockfiles present. No known critical vulnerabilities detected in .NET, Flutter, or npm packages. Flutter apps use slightly outdated packages (flutter_bloc 8.1.6 vs current 8.1.8, dio 5.7.0 vs 5.8.0) but these are minor version differences with no known security issues. The .NET project uses current stable packages.
All mutating endpoints require authentication via JWT and role-based policies (Panel, Ops, Customer). Password hashing uses BCrypt. Admin routes enforce SuperAdmin/Manager roles. However, several read endpoints lack ownership checks: customers can read other customers' bookings, vehicles, and notifications by changing IDs in the URL. Staff can read any branch's data without branch-scoping validation.
No committed real secrets detected. All connection strings, API keys and passwords use placeholders or environment variables. However, .env.example and appsettings.Development.json contain weak example patterns (e.g., 'changeme', simple demo passwords) that could ship unchanged if a buyer skips the setup steps. The HowToSetup.md guide correctly instructs users to generate strong secrets, but the example files themselves don't enforce this.
The .NET backend has good separation of concerns with feature-based folders and clear service registration patterns. However, the Flutter apps show significant code duplication across auth flows, and several .NET files exceed 500 lines. Hard-coded values appear in configuration files where they should be environment-driven.
Requirement list
What the builder agreed to deliver before uploading — 15 of 17 met.
- Complete source for every component Met
- No real credentials in the archive Met
- Builds from a clean machine Met
- Database script or migrations Met
- Authentication and roles on every mutating endpoint Partial
- Pinned dependencies without critical CVEs (nice)Partial
- Documentation set (nice)Met
- Working live demo Met
- Mobile app buildable and pointed at a configurable API Met
- README.md Met
- HowToSetup.md Met
- CLAUDE.md (or AGENTS.md) (nice)Met
- CHANGELOG.md (nice)Met
- appsettings.example.json Met
- a project file Met
- a project file (nice)Met
- a project file Met
Human review
Reviewers from the Vibe96 team in Dubai worked through each question below; a final reviewer signed it off.
Stage 1 — Installed and run from the delivered code
Completed 20 Oct 2026A reviewer installed the product on a clean machine, following only the guide that ships with it.
| Question | Answer | Reviewer's note |
|---|---|---|
| Packages restored without errors | Yes | |
| Solution builds clean | Yes | |
| Database created from the shipped script or migrations | Yes | |
| First sign-in works with the documented steps | Yes | |
| Setup guide is accurate and complete | Yes | |
| Every module in the feature list opens and works | Yes | |
| No real secrets in the archive | Yes | |
| Branding and company details can be changed without code | Yes |
Stage 2 — Live demo compared with the delivered code
Completed 20 Oct 2026A second reviewer checked that what the listing and demo show is what the buyer receives.
| Question | Answer | Reviewer's note |
|---|---|---|
| Demo URL is reachable | Yes | |
| Demo credentials work | Yes | |
| Demo runs the same version as the archive | Yes | |
| All five differentiators are visible in the demo | Yes | |
| Screenshots match the demo | Yes | |
| Nothing in the demo is missing from the code | Yes | |
| Datasheet claims are accurate | Yes |
Changes asked for during review
- None — approved on the first round.
- Sign-off: approved for sale on 22 Oct 2026 with 4 warnings shown publicly.
What this report covers — and what it doesn't
- It covers version 1.1.0 exactly as the buyer downloads it: the source archive, the setup guide and the live demo on the dates above.
- It is not a penetration test, a performance or load test, or a legal review of third-party package licences.
- Scores are a point in time. Libraries age; a later version is audited again and gets its own report.
- Your setup matters. Hosting, configuration and changes made after purchase are outside this review.
- How the score is made: each AI check is scored 0–100 and weighted (security counts most). A listing needs 75 or more, no failing check, and the human review passed.
- Always try the live demo before buying, and ask the builder questions from the product page.
Report history
| Report | Version | Date | Score | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QR-26-00050 | 1.1.0 | 22 Oct 2026 | 89 | Current |
| QR-26-00040 | 1.0.0 | 19 Oct 2026 | 87 | Replaced |
Vibe96 FZ-LLC, Dubai, UAE. This report describes the product at the time of review and is not a warranty.