On this page

Comparison

VibeRaven vs Lovable's security scan

By Ohad Krispin, founder of VibeRaven · LinkedIn

Short answer

If you build and publish in Lovable, use Lovable's own scans first: the Quick scan runs by itself every time you publish, reads the live database's access rules, and both scans are free to run. VibeRaven is a free, open source CLI for Vercel + Supabase repos that you run in a terminal or CI, so it fits the moment the code leaves Lovable: a GitHub synced repo you edit in Cursor or Claude Code, a pull request, a deploy on Vercel. It names a rule id, file and line, and gives the same result on every run. Use both when you edit outside Lovable. VibeRaven is advice, not a gate, and a repository check, not a live database test.

Read the production guide

Who should pick Lovable's security scan

Anyone who builds in Lovable. Lovable's docs describe two built-in scans. The Quick scan reviews the database (tables without row level security, always-allow access rules, leaked password protection turned off), audits npm dependencies for critical vulnerabilities and checks MCP servers your app exposes; the publish dialog runs it automatically. The Deep scan "reviews all your application code for issues specific to your app's logic, permissions, and data", across seven areas such as access control, unsafe input, leaked secrets and payments, when you start it. Lovable says both are free to run, and "Try to fix all" draws on 10 free fixes before using credits. It also says the tools "cannot guarantee complete security".

How to use both on a Lovable app

1
In Lovable, publish and read the Quick scan results, then run the Deep scan before you share the app with real users. Fix what they report there, where the fix can use Lovable's context.
2
When the project lives in GitHub and you change it outside Lovable, run VibeRaven on the Vercel + Supabase repo before each push. For a Vercel + Supabase app it reads the migrations and app code and exits with code 1 on a blocker, so a CI job can stop the merge.
Terminal
```
npx -y viberaven@1.7.8 check
```
3
Fix one finding at a time with your coding agent, run the check again, then publish from Lovable so its Quick scan reads the database you actually changed.

When to choose Lovable's scan instead

You build and publish only in Lovable

The Quick scan runs on publish with no setup, and the fix runs inside the same chat that wrote the code. A separate CLI adds a step you do not need.

You want the live database checked

The Quick scan reads the connected database's access rules as they are, including changes that never reached a migration file. VibeRaven reads only the files in the repo.

You want app logic reviewed

The Deep scan is an AI review across seven areas, including payments, endpoints and exposed personal data. VibeRaven has fixed rules: on our test app it missed a command injection and an admin page with no sign-in check.

You want dependencies audited

The Quick scan audits npm dependencies for critical vulnerabilities. VibeRaven 1.7.8 has no dependency vulnerability rule.

How VibeRaven helps

It runs anywhere the code is: npx -y viberaven@1.7.8 check in a terminal or a CI job, on a repo exported from Lovable, Bolt, Cursor or Claude Code. It needs no Lovable account and no credits, and the CLI is MIT licensed.
On our test app on 2026-11-03 it took about 2 seconds and reported the same 8 findings on each run, each with a rule id and a file: rls_disabled, rls_policy_allows_all_write, service_role_key_in_client_code, security_definer_function_executable, unverified_stripe_webhook, env_var_drift, unbounded_query and missing_monitoring. env_var_drift compares the code with .env.example only; it cannot see Vercel settings.
It reads a migration before it is applied, so a pull request can be checked before Lovable or Supabase ever runs it. It is a repository check for Vercel + Supabase apps, not a live database test: it does not connect to Supabase, Vercel or Stripe, and a clean result does not prove the app is secure.

Keep Lovable's scans on in Lovable; add the repo check where the code is edited outside it, for a Vercel + Supabase app.

Lovable's security scan vs VibeRaven, side by side

Written by the maker of VibeRaven. Lovable facts are from its security docs, read on 2026-11-03. VibeRaven facts are from a real 1.7.8 run on one test app the same day. We did not run Lovable's scans for this page, so the Lovable column says what its docs describe.

Feature table

Lovable's Quick and Deep scans and VibeRaven, from Lovable's docs and a VibeRaven 1.7.8 run, 2026-11-03
	Lovable's scans	VibeRaven
Where it runs	Inside Lovable: Quick scan on publish, Deep scan when you start it	Terminal or CI, on any copy of the repo
What it reads	The connected database, npm dependencies, MCP servers, and all app code (Deep scan)	Migration files and app code in the repo
Tables without RLS, always-true rules	Yes, Quick scan on the live database	Yes, from the migrations: rls_disabled, rls_policy_allows_all_read and _write
Security definer functions the anon key can call	Not named in its docs	Yes, security_definer_function_executable
Leaked secrets, payments, endpoints, injection	Deep scan areas, reviewed by AI	Service role key in client code and unsigned Stripe webhooks only; no injection rule
Dependency vulnerabilities	Quick scan, critical ones	No
Leaked password protection setting	Yes	No
Same result every run	Not stated	Yes, fixed rules
Exit code for CI	No, it runs inside Lovable	Yes, 1 on a blocker
Fixes	Try to fix all: 10 free fixes, then credits	A fix line per finding; your own agent applies it
Price	Both scans free to run	Free, MIT license, no account

The real VibeRaven run

The test app is a small Supabase and Stripe repo with the mistakes AI builders often ship: a profiles table with RLS off, an update policy using (true), a security definer function, the service role key in a client file and a webhook that does not check the Stripe signature. Output trimmed to the finding lines:

Not reported: a command injection in an export route, raw HTML rendered from a note, and an admin page with no sign-in check. Those are the app logic issues an AI review such as the Deep scan is described as looking for.

Output

$ npx -y viberaven@1.7.8 check
🔴 No RLS policy proof in migrations  (rls_disabled)
🔴 A policy lets anyone write every row  (rls_policy_allows_all_write)
🔴 Service role key used in client code  (service_role_key_in_client_code)
🟡 Security definer function callable by the Data API roles  (security_definer_function_executable)
🟡 Stripe webhook does not verify the signature  (unverified_stripe_webhook)
🟡 Env vars used in code but missing from .env.example  (env_var_drift)
🟡 Database queries with no row limit  (unbounded_query)
⚪ No error monitoring detected  (missing_monitoring)
Verdict: ❌ 3 blockers, 4 warnings · score 5

Sources

Browse all launch guides · Read resources · How to make and check your next change

FAQ for builders before launch

Is a Lovable app secure after the security scan passes?

Not by that alone. Lovable says its tools "cannot guarantee complete security" and suggests a professional review for sensitive apps. A passing scan means the checks it ran found nothing; test the access rules by signing in as two different users.

Does the Lovable security scan cost credits?

Running the Quick scan or the Deep scan is free, per Lovable. "Try to fix all" uses 10 free fixes, each freed again 24 hours after use, then credits. Asking the chat to review security is normal build usage and uses credits.

Can I run the Lovable scan outside Lovable?

No. It runs inside the Lovable editor. For a Lovable repo synced to GitHub and edited elsewhere, a repo check in CI, or the Supabase Security Advisor on the live project, covers the changes made outside it.

Do I need both?

Only if code changes outside Lovable. If you build, fix and publish only in Lovable, its scans cover the moment you publish. Once a teammate or an agent pushes to the repo directly, a check on each push catches a bad migration before the next publish.