RBAC Authorization Reviews AGENTS.md Template

Overview

Direct answer: This AGENTS.md template defines a RBAC authorization review workflow using AI coding agents to ensure least privilege, auditability, and traceable governance. It supports both single-agent execution and multi-agent orchestration by clarifying roles, handoffs, context, and decision boundaries.

The RBAC Authorization Reviews AGENTS.md Template provides a practical operating manual you can paste into an AGENTS.md file at project start. It establishes a repeatable, auditable RBAC review flow that can be executed by a planner, an IAM analyst, a policy reviewer, an implementer, a domain specialist, and an auditor, coordinated by a supervisor/orchestrator.

When to Use This AGENTS.md Template

• Auditing RBAC roles for least privilege and correct bindings.
• Reviewing role hierarchies, separation of duties, and cross-system mappings (IAM providers and application services).
• Coordinating changes across identity providers, cloud resources, and application access points.
• Preparing for security audits, compliance checks, and access governance reviews.

Copyable AGENTS.md Template

# AGENTS.md

Project role: RBAC Governance Project

Agent roster and responsibilities:
- Planner (Policy Architect): defines scope, RBAC policies, and acceptance criteria for reviews.
- IAM Analyst: inventories roles, bindings, permissions, and mappings across IAM providers and applications.
- Policy Reviewer: validates alignment with least privilege, segregation of duties, and policy standards.
- Implementer: applies changes to IAM bindings, role definitions, and application access controls.
- Auditor: records changes, verifies correctness, and ensures traceability for audits.
- Domain Specialist: maps RBAC to specific application domains and suggests compensating controls.
- Supervisor/Orchestrator: coordinates agents, enforces rules, and triggers handoffs.

Handoff rules:
- Planner → Implementer: after scope and acceptance criteria are defined.
- Implementer → Policy Reviewer: once changes are applied for validation.
- Policy Reviewer → Auditor: after validation for formal recording and audit readiness.
- Auditor → Domain Specialist: if domain-specific validation is required.

Context, memory, and source-of-truth rules:
- Context: current RBAC policy documents, existing role bindings, app mappings, and compliance requirements.
- Memory: store decisions, sources, and evidence in a centralized AGENTS.md workspace with cross-references.
- Source of truth: IAM identity provider, policy repository, and issue/tolicy tickets.

Tool access and permission rules:
- Tools: IAM API, policy repository (Git), ticketing system, and monitoring/logging tools.
- Secrets: kept in a secure vault; agents must not expose secrets in code or logs.
- Production systems: changes require approvals; sandbox/testing environments must be used before production.
- External services: access controlled via service accounts with least privilege; rotate credentials.
- Approvals: all changes require Planner + Implementer + Reviewer approvals unless delegated by policy.

Architecture rules:
- Centralized source of truth; versioned policies; auditable change history.
- Idempotent operations; no drift between environments.
- Clear policy identifiers and metadata on every update.

File structure rules:
- rbac-authorization-reviews/
  - policies/
    - roles/
    - permissions/
  - mappings/
    - apps/
  - workflows/
    - rbac_review_planner.yaml
    - rbac_review_orchestrator.yaml
  - tests/
    - unit/
    - integration/
  - docs/
    - agent-handbooks/

Data, API, or integration rules:
- Pull role bindings from IAM providers via APIs; map to app-level roles; write changes to policy repo.
- Use safe test data in non-production environments; sanitize PII when possible.

Validation rules:
- Validate each change against least privilege, segregation of duties, and compliance criteria.
- Run pre-merge checks and simulated executions to ensure no unintended broad permissions.

Security rules:
- Do not store secrets in code or logs; limit tool access.
- Enforce MFA and role-based access to governance tooling.

Testing rules:
- Unit tests for policy generation and mapping logic.
- Integration tests against IAM provider APIs and application mappings.
- End-to-end tests in a staging environment before production changes.

Deployment rules:
- Use GitOps: PRs must be reviewed, tested, and approved before applying to production IAM.
- Maintain an immutable audit trail for all RBAC changes.

Human review and escalation rules:
- Escalate any policy conflicts or ambiguous mappings to Security Lead and IAM Architect.
- Maintain escalation logs with decisions and owners.

Failure handling and rollback rules:
- If a deployment fails, rollback to last good policy version; re-run tests; notify stakeholders.
- Preserve a rollback rationale and evidence for audits.

Things Agents must not do:
- Do not bypass review or apply changes directly to production.
- Do not modify unrelated policies or bindings without explicit handoffs and approvals.
- Do not mix test data with production manifests.

Recommended Agent Operating Model

The RBAC review model assigns clear roles with decision boundaries. The Planner defines scope and criteria; the Implementer executes changes; the Policy Reviewer validates policy correctness; the Auditor ensures traceability; the Domain Specialist provides domain-specific guidance; and the Supervisor coordinates all activity, handling escalation and handoffs. Escalation paths follow policy gates, with traceable approvals and rollback readiness. This model supports both single-agent execution and multi-agent orchestration with explicit handoffs and shared context to prevent context drift.

Recommended Project Structure

rbac-authorization-reviews/
├── policies/
│   ├── roles/
│   └── permissions/
├── mappings/
│   └── apps/
├── workflows/
│   ├── rbac_review_planner.yaml
│   └── rbac_review_orchestrator.yaml
├── tests/
│   ├── unit/
│   └── integration/
└── docs/
    └── agent-handbooks/

Core Operating Principles

• Operate with a single source of truth for RBAC policy data.
• Maintain explicit handoffs and decision boundaries between agents.
• Auditability and traceability are mandatory for every change.
• Enforce least privilege and segregation of duties in all reviews.
• Use GitOps-style deployment with PR-based approvals.

Agent Handoff and Collaboration Rules

Define handoffs between Planner, Implementer, Reviewer, Auditor, and Domain Specialist. Each handoff must include a context summary, evidence, and acceptance criteria. Use shared workspace memory to pass context and maintain traceability. Handoffs trigger validation checkpoints and forced checkpoints for escalations when needed.

Tool Governance and Permission Rules

• Access to IAM APIs and policy repositories restricted by role and MFA.
• All policy changes must be reviewed and approved by Planner, Implementer, and Reviewer before deployment.
• Secrets stored in a vault; never embedded in code or logs.
• Automated checks to prevent privilege creep and binding drift.
• Logging and monitoring enabled for all modifications.

Code Construction Rules

• Policies must be defined with explicit principals, actions, resources, and conditions.
• All mappings must be versioned and auditable.
• Automated tests must cover at least one positive and one negative scenario per policy.
• Do not bypass handoffs; ensure all changes pass governance gates.

Security and Production Rules

• Require approvals for all production changes; changes must be auditable.
• Suppress sensitive data in logs; use masking where appropriate.
• Apply changes in a controlled sequence with rollback capability.

Testing Checklist

• Unit tests for policy generation and role mappings.
• Integration tests against IAM provider APIs and app mappings.
• End-to-end testing in a staging environment before production deployment.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Skipping approvals or bypassing the governance gates.
• Allowing drift between environments without a reconciliation step.
• Over-privileging roles or misclassifying domain mappings.
• Failing to maintain a complete audit trail of RBAC changes.

Related implementation resources: AI Agent Use Case for Food Processors Using Production Line Check-Sheets To Build Audit-Ready Food Safety Compliance Reports and AI Use Case for Sales Pipeline Reviews and Deal Risk Scoring.

FAQ

What is this AGENTS.md template for RBAC authorization reviews?

It provides a copyable operating manual for RBAC governance using AI coding agents, including roles, handoffs, and validation rules.

Who should use this AGENTS.md Template?

IAM teams, security engineers, developers, and product teams implementing RBAC and audit workflows.

How are agent handoffs defined?

Handoffs are defined at planning, implementation, review, and audit stages with explicit criteria and shared context to prevent drift.

What tools are involved in RBAC reviews?

IAM provider APIs, policy repositories, ticketing systems, and CI/CD pipelines for deploying policy changes; secrets are managed securely.

What constitutes a failed RBAC change in this workflow?

A failure triggers rollback, an escalation to security leadership, and a documented corrective action plan.

What should Agents not do?

Do not bypass approvals, apply changes directly to production, or modify unrelated policies without proper handoffs and traceability.