‹ WashBayQuality report QR-26-00040
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
- 1.0.0 · released 19 Oct 2026
- Stack
- ASP.NET Core 10 + Flutter 3.35 · C# 13 / .NET 10 · Microsoft SQL Server 2019+
- Built with
- Claude Code
- Review period
- 16 Oct 2026 – 19 Oct 2026
- ✓AI code audit6 checks · 15 Oct 2026
- ✓Installed & run19 Oct 2026
- ✓Demo vs delivered19 Oct 2026
- ✓Final sign-off19 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.
- !6 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 secrets were committed. However, HowToSetup.md and .env.example contain weak default passwords (e.g. '[hidden]', 'Manager@12345') that could be copied verbatim by users. The appsettings.Development.json ships with demo passwords enabled by default. All are documented as examples, but stronger placeholders would prevent accidental production use. | 92 | Warning |
| Dependency vulnerabilities | All lockfiles are present and no known critical vulnerabilities were found. The Flutter app uses slightly outdated packages (flutter_bloc 8.1.6, dio 5.7.0) that have newer versions available, and the .NET project uses ASP.NET Core 10 (pre-release) which should be updated to a stable release. These are maintenance issues, not security emergencies. | 85 | Warning |
| Authorisation & access control | All admin, staff and mutating endpoints require authentication and role checks via ASP.NET Core policies. Password hashing uses BCrypt. The main gaps are missing ownership checks on a few customer read endpoints (vehicles, bookings, notifications) where user A could read user B's data by changing an ID in the URL. These are warnings because they leak only customer data, not admin data or payment details. | 92 | Warning |
| Database access rules | No SQL injection or unscoped destructive statements found. EF Core migrations are complete and use parameterized queries throughout. The schema has proper foreign keys and cascade rules. Minor issue: several foreign key columns lack explicit indexes (EF creates them on navigation properties but not all FK columns have them), which may affect join performance at scale. | 92 | Warning |
| Code structure & duplication | The project has clear module boundaries and good separation of concerns overall. However, there is noticeable duplication in Flutter network/auth code, some large files mixing concerns, and hard-coded values scattered across configuration. The .NET side is well-structured; the Flutter side has room for consolidation. | 72 | Warning |
| Build reproducibility | The project can build on a clean machine but HowToSetup.md has critical gaps. The Flutter app requires env.json creation (mentioned in Flutter a project file but not in main setup), SQL Server setup jumps from Docker run to dotnet ef without creating the washbay user, and the .NET restore step is implied but never explicit. Docker Compose references .env variables that must be set before first run. | 78 | Warning |
Open warnings
Problems that did not stop the listing. They stay on the product page until a later version fixes them.
No SQL injection or unscoped destructive statements found. EF Core migrations are complete and use parameterized queries throughout. The schema has proper foreign keys and cascade rules. Minor issue: several foreign key columns lack explicit indexes (EF creates them on navigation properties but not all FK columns have them), which may affect join performance at scale.
All lockfiles are present and no known critical vulnerabilities were found. The Flutter app uses slightly outdated packages (flutter_bloc 8.1.6, dio 5.7.0) that have newer versions available, and the .NET project uses ASP.NET Core 10 (pre-release) which should be updated to a stable release. These are maintenance issues, not security emergencies.
No real API keys or secrets were committed. However, HowToSetup.md and .env.example contain weak default passwords (e.g. '[hidden]', 'Manager@12345') that could be copied verbatim by users. The appsettings.Development.json ships with demo passwords enabled by default. All are documented as examples, but stronger placeholders would prevent accidental production use.
All admin, staff and mutating endpoints require authentication and role checks via ASP.NET Core policies. Password hashing uses BCrypt. The main gaps are missing ownership checks on a few customer read endpoints (vehicles, bookings, notifications) where user A could read user B's data by changing an ID in the URL. These are warnings because they leak only customer data, not admin data or payment details.
The project has clear module boundaries and good separation of concerns overall. However, there is noticeable duplication in Flutter network/auth code, some large files mixing concerns, and hard-coded values scattered across configuration. The .NET side is well-structured; the Flutter side has room for consolidation.
The project can build on a clean machine but HowToSetup.md has critical gaps. The Flutter app requires env.json creation (mentioned in Flutter a project file but not in main setup), SQL Server setup jumps from Docker run to dotnet ef without creating the washbay user, and the .NET restore step is implied but never explicit. Docker Compose references .env variables that must be set before first run.
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 19 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 19 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 19 Oct 2026 with 6 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.