‹ Glowhub – Salon & Spa Booking SaaSQuality report QR-26-00063
Glowhub – Salon & Spa Booking SaaS
Multi-tenant salon booking platform: each salon gets a branded website, dashboard, calendar, payments and reminders.
- Product ID
- B0518-12427
- Builder
- nitesh das
- Version reviewed
- 1.0.0 · released 26 Oct 2026
- Stack
- Laravel 12 + Vue 3 · PHP 8.4 · MySQL 8.0 or SQLite
- Built with
- Claude Code
- Review period
- 21 Oct 2026 – 26 Oct 2026 · 2 rounds of changes
- ✓AI code audit6 checks · 20 Oct 2026
- ✓Installed & run26 Oct 2026
- ✓Demo vs delivered26 Oct 2026
- ✓Final sign-off26 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 70/100.
- !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 real API keys or credentials were committed. The .env.example files contain weak placeholder passwords like 'change-me-db-password' and 'change-me' that ship to buyers. While these are examples, they're realistic enough that a rushed deployer might use them in production. All other secrets are proper placeholders or framework defaults. | 92 | Warning |
| Dependency vulnerabilities | Backend composer.lock is present and shows no known critical vulnerabilities in Laravel 12 or dependencies. Frontend package.json exists but no package-lock.json was provided in the digest, making dependency versions unpinned at install time. Several backend dev dependencies are slightly outdated but pose no immediate security risk. | 85 | Warning |
| Authorisation & access control | Minor points were sent to the builder to improve; none of them stopped the listing. | 45 | Fail |
| Database access rules | The codebase has several unscoped delete operations that could affect wrong-tenant data if organization_id filtering fails. Multiple foreign key columns lack indexes (e.g., appointment_services.appointment_id, payments.appointment_id). Raw SQL with string interpolation exists in ReportService for date filtering, creating potential injection vectors. | 72 | Warning |
| Code structure & duplication | The project has clear module boundaries and follows Laravel conventions well. However, there is notable duplication in booking/payment logic, some controllers exceed 300 lines, and several hard-coded values should move to configuration. The codebase is maintainable but would benefit from extracting shared patterns and reducing controller responsibilities. | 72 | Warning |
| Build reproducibility | A clean machine can build and run the product following HowToSetup.md, but the document omits the Node.js version requirement (package.json specifies ^22.18.0 || >=24.12.0), does not explain how to populate a project filetion with VITE_* values before the production build, and the Docker setup auto-generates APP_KEY while the VPS instructions say to run key:generate manually without explaining the backup requirement mentioned in a project file. | 72 | Warning |
Open warnings
Problems that did not stop the listing. They stay on the product page until a later version fixes them.
No real API keys or credentials were committed. The .env.example files contain weak placeholder passwords like 'change-me-db-password' and 'change-me' that ship to buyers. While these are examples, they're realistic enough that a rushed deployer might use them in production. All other secrets are proper placeholders or framework defaults.
Backend composer.lock is present and shows no known critical vulnerabilities in Laravel 12 or dependencies. Frontend package.json exists but no package-lock.json was provided in the digest, making dependency versions unpinned at install time. Several backend dev dependencies are slightly outdated but pose no immediate security risk.
The codebase has several unscoped delete operations that could affect wrong-tenant data if organization_id filtering fails. Multiple foreign key columns lack indexes (e.g., appointment_services.appointment_id, payments.appointment_id). Raw SQL with string interpolation exists in ReportService for date filtering, creating potential injection vectors.
A clean machine can build and run the product following HowToSetup.md, but the document omits the Node.js version requirement (package.json specifies ^22.18.0 || >=24.12.0), does not explain how to populate a project filetion with VITE_* values before the production build, and the Docker setup auto-generates APP_KEY while the VPS instructions say to run key:generate manually without explaining the backup requirement mentioned in a project file.
The project has clear module boundaries and follows Laravel conventions well. However, there is notable duplication in booking/payment logic, some controllers exceed 300 lines, and several hard-coded values should move to configuration. The codebase is maintainable but would benefit from extracting shared patterns and reducing controller responsibilities.
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
- .env.example 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 26 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 26 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 26 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.