rbac-design

RBAC design

Badly designed RBAC is guaranteed rework. This is the process and the model that work.

The model: roles + granular permissions (not pure roles)

Pure roles ("admin can do everything, editor can edit") break at the first real exception. The house model:

• Permission = atomic action on a domain (e.g. task:create, document:approve, report:export).
• Role = named set of permissions (N:N role ↔ permission).
• User receives roles (N:N user ↔ role), and the system resolves the effective permission set.

model Role {
  id          String  @id @default(uuid())
  workspaceId String
  name        String
  permissions RolePermission[]
}

model Permission {
  id     String @id @default(uuid())
  domain String   // e.g. "task", "document", "report"
  action String   // e.g. "create", "read", "update", "approve", "delete"
  roles  RolePermission[]
  @@unique([domain, action])
}

model RolePermission {
  roleId       String
  permissionId String
  role         Role       @relation(fields: [roleId], references: [id])
  permission   Permission @relation(fields: [permissionId], references: [id])
  @@id([roleId, permissionId])
}

Server-side check via guard/decorator (@RequirePermission('document:approve')). The frontend uses permissions only to hide buttons — never as real control.

The process: matrix before code

Do not implement RBAC straight into code. The correct flow:

1. Map the domains of the system (the "areas": tasks, documents, users, reports, settings...). Medium systems have 8–15 domains.
2. Map the real roles of the client's operation (not the ones you imagine). Usually 5–8 roles are enough; more than that smells like roles that should be standalone permissions.
3. Build the role × domain matrix in a readable document (table: rows = roles, columns = domains, cells = allowed actions).
4. Submit it for approval by the architect/tech lead and, when it makes sense, the client. The matrix is cheap to change; code and migrations are not.
5. Only after approval, implement — and if implementing into an existing system, verify the real codebase first (do not implement against an imagined codebase).