‹ Votedesk - Feedback Boards, Roadmap & Changelog SaaSQuality report QR-26-00099
Votedesk - Feedback Boards, Roadmap & Changelog SaaS
Self-hosted feedback boards, public roadmap and changelog. Run it for your product or sell it as a multi-tenant SaaS.
- Product ID
- B0055-84814
- Builder
- Asad · Devwhite
- Version reviewed
- 1.0.0 · released 5 Nov 2026
- Stack
- Laravel 13 (laravel/framework ^13.17) · PHP 8.3 or later · MySQL 8 or MariaDB 10.3+ (SQLite for local development)
- Built with
- Claude Code
- Review period
- 31 Oct 2026 – 5 Nov 2026 · 1 round of changes
- ✓AI code audit6 checks · 31 Oct 2026
- ✓Installed & run5 Nov 2026
- ✓Demo vs delivered5 Nov 2026
- ✓Final sign-off5 Nov 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.
- !11 of 15 promised items delivered (setup guide, example config and the rest).
- ✓Security scored 77/100 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 | Regex candidates in PHP code are validation rules, framework calls, or variable names, not secrets. The docker-compose.yml ships fixed database passwords, and the demo accounts use a well-known password. These are weak defaults rather than live credentials, and .env.example is blank. | 88 | Warning |
| Dependency vulnerabilities | composer.json is well-formed with caret-pinned production dependencies and a committed composer.lock (324 KB). No wildcard or 'latest' versions appear. The contents of the lockfiles were not available, so installed versions could not be checked against advisories, and no package-lock.json appears in the tree (it may have been omitted as a lock file). | 82 | Pass |
| Authorisation & access control | The architecture is solid: Form Requests, Policies, a tenant WorkspaceScope, scopeBindings, a super-admin middleware and bcrypt hashing via the User model. However a project file and most controllers were omitted from the digest, so per-route guards and ownership checks could not be traced. A few concrete risks stood out in the visible code. | 72 | Warning |
| Database access rules | The architecture is good: a global WorkspaceScope on tenant models, workspace_id kept out of mass assignment, scopeBindings() on routes, and Eloquent used throughout. The digest did not include the migrations, services, raw queries or WorkspaceScope itself, so I could not confirm there is no string-built SQL, unscoped destructive statements, or missing foreign keys and indexes. The score is capped until those files are reviewed. | 72 | Warning |
| Code structure & duplication | The digest shows a sensible layout: thin controllers, Form Requests, Policies, a services layer and a documented architecture in CLAUDE.md. Duplication and god-file risks cannot be fully verified from the excerpts, and a few hard-coded demo values are visible. | 84 | Pass |
| Build reproducibility | composer.json, package.json, lockfile and migrations are coherent, and vendor/node_modules are excluded from the archive. However HowToSetup.md was not visible in the digest, so prerequisites and step order could not be verified, and there are several small version and packaging inconsistencies. | 72 | Warning |
Open warnings
Problems that did not stop the listing. They stay on the product page until a later version fixes them.
Regex candidates in PHP code are validation rules, framework calls, or variable names, not secrets. The docker-compose.yml ships fixed database passwords, and the demo accounts use a well-known password. These are weak defaults rather than live credentials, and .env.example is blank.
The architecture is solid: Form Requests, Policies, a tenant WorkspaceScope, scopeBindings, a super-admin middleware and bcrypt hashing via the User model. However a project file and most controllers were omitted from the digest, so per-route guards and ownership checks could not be traced. A few concrete risks stood out in the visible code.
composer.json, package.json, lockfile and migrations are coherent, and vendor/node_modules are excluded from the archive. However HowToSetup.md was not visible in the digest, so prerequisites and step order could not be verified, and there are several small version and packaging inconsistencies.
The architecture is good: a global WorkspaceScope on tenant models, workspace_id kept out of mass assignment, scopeBindings() on routes, and Eloquent used throughout. The digest did not include the migrations, services, raw queries or WorkspaceScope itself, so I could not confirm there is no string-built SQL, unscoped destructive statements, or missing foreign keys and indexes. The score is capped until those files are reviewed.
Requirement list
What the builder agreed to deliver before uploading — 11 of 15 met.
- Complete source for every component Met
- No real credentials in the archive Met
- Builds from a clean machine Partial
- 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 Partial
- 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 5 Nov 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 5 Nov 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 5 Nov 2026 with 4 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.