‹ assistraQuality report QR-26-00034
assistra
Multi-tenant help desk with tickets, SLAs, automation, knowledge base, community and analytics for support teams.
- Product ID
- B0005-63903
- Builder
- Chow Studio
- Version reviewed
- 1.0.0 · released 9 Oct 2026
- Stack
- ASP.NET Core 10 MVC (Razor) · C# 12 / .NET 10 · SQL Server 2019+
- Built with
- Claude Code
- Review period
- 9 Oct 2026 – 9 Oct 2026
- ✓AI code audit6 checks · 9 Oct 2026
- ✓Installed & run9 Oct 2026
- ✓Demo vs delivered9 Oct 2026
- ✓Final sign-off9 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 15 promised items delivered (setup guide, example config and the rest).
- ✓Security scored 93/100 with no failing check.
- !3 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 real API keys or production credentials were found. The demo password 'Demo@2026' is hardcoded in multiple files and ships to buyers, creating a security risk if demo mode is accidentally enabled in production. The .env.example file correctly uses placeholders for all secrets. | 92 | Warning |
| Dependency vulnerabilities | The .NET project uses packages.lock.json with locked dependencies. No known critical vulnerabilities detected in the locked versions. Several packages are 1-2 minor versions behind current stable releases (e.g., Dapper 2.1.35 vs 2.1.44, MailKit 4.8.0 vs 4.9.0). The Dockerfile uses mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/aspnet:10.0 without a digest pin, allowing silent base image updates. | 85 | Warning |
| Authorisation & access control | Every mutating endpoint has an authentication guard via [RequirePermission] attributes or explicit checks. Password storage uses [hidden] hashing. Multi-tenant isolation is enforced through OrgId filtering in repositories. A few read endpoints lack explicit ownership validation beyond tenant scope, but these are low-risk as they still filter by OrgI | 95 | Pass |
| Database access rules | All SQL is parameterized via ADO.NET with no string concatenation of user input. Every repository query filters by OrgId for multi-tenancy. Delete and update statements include WHERE clauses scoped to tenant and record. The schema is complete and can be created from empty, but a few foreign key columns lack indexes which may cause performance issues at scale. | 92 | Pass |
| Code structure & duplication | The project follows Clean Architecture well with clear module boundaries and good separation of concerns. However, there is noticeable duplication in repository patterns, some large service files, and hard-coded configuration values scattered across multiple locations. These issues don't break the design but increase maintenance burden. | 72 | Warning |
| Build reproducibility | The solution builds cleanly with .NET 10 SDK and SQL Server 2019+. All project references resolve, Docker setup is complete, and the setup document covers prerequisites. Minor issues: the setup document doesn't explicitly state the .NET 10 SDK version requirement upfront, and the Docker init script references a non-existent app-login.sql file (though the functionality works via inline SQL). | 92 | Pass |
Open warnings
Problems that did not stop the listing. They stay on the product page until a later version fixes them.
The .NET project uses packages.lock.json with locked dependencies. No known critical vulnerabilities detected in the locked versions. Several packages are 1-2 minor versions behind current stable releases (e.g., Dapper 2.1.35 vs 2.1.44, MailKit 4.8.0 vs 4.9.0). The Dockerfile uses mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/aspnet:10.0 without a digest pin, allowing silent base image updates.
No real API keys or production credentials were found. The demo password 'Demo@2026' is hardcoded in multiple files and ships to buyers, creating a security risk if demo mode is accidentally enabled in production. The .env.example file correctly uses placeholders for all secrets.
The project follows Clean Architecture well with clear module boundaries and good separation of concerns. However, there is noticeable duplication in repository patterns, some large service files, and hard-coded configuration values scattered across multiple locations. These issues don't break the design but increase maintenance burden.
Requirement list
What the builder agreed to deliver before uploading — 15 of 15 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 Met
- Pinned dependencies without critical CVEs (nice)Met
- Documentation set (nice)Met
- Working live demo 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
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 9 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 9 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 9 Oct 2026 with 3 warnings shown publicly.
What this report covers — and what it doesn't
- It covers version 1.0.0 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.
Vibe96 FZ-LLC, Dubai, UAE. This report describes the product at the time of review and is not a warranty.