‹ Serveo AppQuality report QR-26-00036
Serveo App
Multi-branch food delivery system with customer, rider, kitchen and HQ portals plus native mobile apps
- Product ID
- B0007-19064
- Builder
- dev-studio
- Version reviewed
- 1.0.0 · released 12 Oct 2026
- Stack
- ASP.NET Core 9 MVC + Flutter 3.24 · C# 12 (.NET 9) · SQL Server 2022
- Built with
- Claude Code, Cursor
- Review period
- 11 Oct 2026 – 12 Oct 2026
- ✓AI code audit6 checks · 6 Oct 2026
- ✓Installed & run12 Oct 2026
- ✓Demo vs delivered12 Oct 2026
- ✓Final sign-off12 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 71/100.
- !5 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 live API keys or production credentials were found. However, the codebase ships with weak default passwords ('Royex@2026') hardcoded in multiple files, including database seeds and configuration examples. These defaults are documented as demo credentials but ship to buyers unchanged, creating a security risk if deployed without modification. | 75 | Warning |
| Dependency vulnerabilities | The Flutter app has a proper pubspec.lock with pinned dependencies. The ASP.NET Core backend has no packages.lock.json, relying on floating NuGet package versions which can introduce breaking changes or vulnerabilities between builds. Several Flutter packages are outdated (google_maps_flutter 2.2.1 is 2+ years old, current is 2.9.0+). No known critical vulnerabilities detected in the versions present. | 72 | Warning |
| Authorisation & access control | Minor points were sent to the builder to improve; none of them stopped the listing. | 45 | Fail |
| Database access rules | All SQL uses parameterized queries via ADO.NET with no string concatenation of user input. Row-level security enforces branch isolation. DELETE/UPDATE statements are properly scoped. The schema is complete and can be created from empty. Minor issues: some foreign key columns lack explicit indexes (SQL Server auto-indexes FK constraints but explicit indexes improve query plans), and a few stored procedures could benefit from additional input validation. | 92 | Warning |
| Code structure & duplication | The project exhibits multiple structural issues: hard-coded demo passwords and connection strings appear in 15+ files instead of being centralized; several controller and service files exceed 500 lines with mixed concerns; SQL queries are duplicated across controllers; and configuration values are scattered rather than injected. While the architecture is sound, maintainability is compromised by these patterns. | 62 | Warning |
| Build reproducibility | The backend can build after database setup, but HowToSetup.md jumps straight to 'dotnet run' without 'dotnet restore', risking first-run failures. Flutter setup.sh/bat are present but the main README and HowToSetup skip the Flutter build entirely. The connection string example uses localhost\SQLEXPRESS but docker-compose uses 'db', creating confusion about which environment the docs target. | 72 | Warning |
Open warnings
Problems that did not stop the listing. They stay on the product page until a later version fixes them.
The Flutter app has a proper pubspec.lock with pinned dependencies. The ASP.NET Core backend has no packages.lock.json, relying on floating NuGet package versions which can introduce breaking changes or vulnerabilities between builds. Several Flutter packages are outdated (google_maps_flutter 2.2.1 is 2+ years old, current is 2.9.0+). No known critical vulnerabilities detected in the versions present.
All SQL uses parameterized queries via ADO.NET with no string concatenation of user input. Row-level security enforces branch isolation. DELETE/UPDATE statements are properly scoped. The schema is complete and can be created from empty. Minor issues: some foreign key columns lack explicit indexes (SQL Server auto-indexes FK constraints but explicit indexes improve query plans), and a few stored procedures could benefit from additional input validation.
The project exhibits multiple structural issues: hard-coded demo passwords and connection strings appear in 15+ files instead of being centralized; several controller and service files exceed 500 lines with mixed concerns; SQL queries are duplicated across controllers; and configuration values are scattered rather than injected. While the architecture is sound, maintainability is compromised by these patterns.
No live API keys or production credentials were found. However, the codebase ships with weak default passwords ('Royex@2026') hardcoded in multiple files, including database seeds and configuration examples. These defaults are documented as demo credentials but ship to buyers unchanged, creating a security risk if deployed without modification.
The backend can build after database setup, but HowToSetup.md jumps straight to 'dotnet run' without 'dotnet restore', risking first-run failures. Flutter setup.sh/bat are present but the main README and HowToSetup skip the Flutter build entirely. The connection string example uses localhost\SQLEXPRESS but docker-compose uses 'db', creating confusion about which environment the docs target.
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 Partial
- 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)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 12 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 12 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 12 Oct 2026 with 5 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.