Design access control before you build it, not after a breach — choose the authentication approach, model the roles and permissions, review the design for gaps, then document the identity model.
Access control is the part of a system you cannot retrofit safely — bolt authorization on after the fact and you get the leaked record, the privilege escalation, the role that can do more than anyone intended. The decisions are upfront and they compound: how users prove who they are, what each role may do, where the identity boundaries sit, how sessions behave. 'Ask AI to add auth' produces a login form and stops, skipping the authorization model that actually keeps data safe. This workflow designs the whole access-control strategy — authentication, roles, permissions, sessions — and reviews it for gaps before a single check ships.
Each step uses an existing NewPrompt tool, pre-filled by a matching resource. Open the resource to read it, or jump straight into the tool with the inputs ready.
Choose the authentication approach
Anchor the model as a security engineer and decide how users prove who they are — sessions versus tokens, password versus passwordless, SSO, MFA — on the trade-offs your system actually faces, not the default.
Model the roles and permissions
Design the authorization model one decision at a time: the roles, what each may do, how permissions compose (RBAC and beyond), and how sessions carry identity. This is the layer that actually controls access.
Review the access-control design for gaps
Turn a security lens on the design before it's code: missing checks, privilege escalation, roles that can do too much, identity boundaries that leak. Find the holes while they're still cheap to close.
Document the identity model
Capture the decisions — auth method, role-and-permission matrix, session rules, identity boundaries — in a document the build follows and the next security review starts from.
An access-control strategy designed before implementation — authentication chosen on trade-offs, roles and permissions modeled, the design reviewed for escalation and gaps, and the identity model documented — so security is built into the structure instead of patched in after the first leak.
Use this one for who may call your endpoints and what they can do; use API Design for the endpoints and contracts themselves. This workflow designs authentication, roles, permissions, and sessions — the access layer over the API surface. They inform each other, but the role-and-permission model is a separate artifact you design here.
A documented identity model: the chosen authentication approach with its trade-offs, a role-and-permission matrix, session rules, and identity boundaries — plus notes from the gap review. Step 4 captures it in Markdown so your build follows it and the next security review starts from it. You write the prompts' outputs into that document yourself.
Work the four steps in order in your own AI tool: choose the authentication approach, model roles and permissions, review the design for escalation and missing checks, then document it. NewPrompt gives you the prompt for each step plus the tool and resource links; you run each prompt and carry its output into the next step.
No. This workflow designs access control up front and pressure-tests it for gaps, but it does not certify the result or replace a security audit or penetration test. The AI assists your reasoning; it does not sign off. High-stakes systems still need a real audit of the implemented code, and the final call is yours.
Know your system's real constraints: who the users are, what data needs protecting, any compliance or SSO requirements, and the trade-offs you actually face — so step 1 chooses authentication on those, not a default. Vague inputs produce a generic login form; the more concrete the context, the sharper the role-and-permission model.
No. It structures the auth and authorization decisions, surfaces the trade-offs, and pressure-tests the design for gaps — but the access-control calls, and owning their consequences, stay with you. High-stakes systems still warrant a real security audit.
Complete build journeys that include this workflow as a stage.
The full path to a backend you can put clients on — define the requirements, design the architecture, API contract, data model, and access control, then build it reviewed, tested, secured, and shipped.
The full path to an applicant tracking system — model jobs, candidates, and hiring stages, generate job descriptions and screening prompts, parse résumés into structured data, design the hiring API, set roles, review security, then ship.
The full path to a booking and reservation system — model resources, availability, and reservations, design the booking API, set customer accounts, wire calendar and notification integrations, design the UI, review security, then ship.
The full path to an inventory management system — model products, stock, locations, and movements, design the inventory API, set roles, plan supplier and POS integrations, design the UI, review data-integrity risks, then ship.
The full path to an internal admin panel — model the operational data it manages, design the management API, define RBAC and admin permissions, design the tables and forms, review risky admin actions, then ship to trusted internal users.
The full path to a two-sided platform — define the buyer-and-seller requirements, model the data, design the API, build roles and permissions, wire integrations, design the UI, then test, secure, and ship it.
The full path to a CRM that fits your sales process — define the contacts, deals, and pipeline, model the data that ties them together, then build the roles, integrations, and pipeline UI, and ship.
The full path to a store you own end to end — model the catalog and orders, design the storefront and checkout, add customer accounts and payments, then secure it, test it, and ship.
Both of them logged in successfully. One of them is looking at a ticket from another company's workspace. Here's how to turn your real actors, resources and actions into a reviewable RBAC model and a permission matrix where every cell says allow, deny, or on what condition.
SSO arrives as a checkbox and lands as a lifecycle. Plan the integration before you build it: the identity key, the linking rule that isn't account takeover, what a provider's groups may and may not grant, and what happens when somebody leaves.
Review code for what an attacker would do, not just what tests catch — anchor the model as a security engineer, run a threat-focused review, then back the findings with auth and input tests.
Design an API on its contract instead of discovering it endpoint by endpoint — model the resources, design the endpoints and payloads, pin the contract, then review it before code locks it in.
Design a schema on its data, not a hunch — model the entities and relationships, set the constraints that protect integrity, plan indexes around real queries, then document the schema and migration.