db-multitenancy
Skill22 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Audit multi-tenant data isolation — tenant model fit (shared rows vs schema vs database), missing or unenforced tenant scoping, the tenant_id-leading composite index/key requirement, and cross-tenant leak risk where queries or constraints omit the tenant boundary. Module M9. Feeds both the Design & Integrity (Seguridad) and Performance & Scale (Escala) scores.
In this repository36 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- auditSkill
- checklistSkill
- db-antipatternsSkill
- db-concurrencySkill
- db-connection-poolingSkill
- db-constraintsSkill
- db-defaults-generatedSkill
- db-engine-selectionSkill
- db-index-hygieneSkill
- db-indexingSkill
- db-keysSkill
- db-migration-safetySkill
- db-namingSkill
- db-normalizationSkill
- db-orchestratorSkill
- db-partitioning-shardingSkill
- db-platform-fitSkill
- db-query-patternsSkill
- db-referential-integritySkill
- db-replicas-viewsSkill
- db-security-accessSkill
- db-specialized-fitSkill
- db-storage-bloatSkill
- db-temporal-historySkill
- db-types-precisionSkill
- designSkill
- explainSkill
- fixSkill
- introspectSkill
- migrateSkill
- nextSkill
- scoreSkill
- seedSkill
- stack-detectSkill
- startSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 29
Check RLS state and tenant-leading indexes:
- Very specific: line 40
No live DB → RLS/enforcement findings stay needs_api, never a silent pass.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
<!-- Copyright (c) 2026 Enrique Rocha (@soyenriquerocha) · tododeia.com · id er-f37b7121 -->db-multitenancy (M9)
In a multi-tenant system the tenant boundary is the most important constraint in the schema: a single query that forgets it leaks one customer's data to another. It is also a performance axis — tenant_id must lead the keys and indexes so every access is tenant-pruned. This module is both-axis: isolation on design (Seguridad), index/partition locality on performance (Escala). Skip entirely (not_applicable) when the system is single-tenant.
What it checks
- Tenant model fit: shared-table (
tenant_idcolumn) vs schema-per-tenant vs database-per-tenant — flag a model mismatched to the isolation requirement (e.g. shared rows for a strict-isolation/regulated workload with no RLS). - Missing tenant scoping: tenant-owned tables lacking a
tenant_id/org_id/account_idcolumn, or a tenant column that is nullable (allowing un-scoped rows). - Unenforced isolation: tenant scoping relied on app code only, with no RLS policy (Postgres) and no constraint — one missing
WHERE tenant_id = ?leaks data. Ties to M10 (RLS off = sev5 on a relied-on tenant table). - tenant_id-leading index/key: indexes and the PK/clustering key that do not lead with
tenant_id, so the engine cannot prune to one tenant — full-table scans crossing tenants (perf) and worse isolation. Ties to M11 ESR ordering and M16 partitioning. - Cross-tenant FK / UNIQUE: uniqueness or FKs defined without the tenant column, allowing collisions/joins across tenants.
Axis & severity
- RLS off / no enforced isolation on a relied-on shared-tenant table: severity 5,
fail, axisboth, confidenceestablished(caps; the cap itself is owned/asserted with M10's RLS rule — coordinate, do not double-count). - Tenant-owned table missing
tenant_id: severity 4,warn/fail, axisboth. - Index/PK not leading with
tenant_id: severity 3,warn, axisperformance. - UNIQUE/FK omitting tenant column: severity 3–4,
warn, axisboth.
Tier-0 static check
Parse DDL/snapshot via scripts/parse-schema.mjs: identify tenant-owned tables (heuristic: business tables in a system flagged multi-tenant), check each for a non-null tenant column, verify PKs/UNIQUEs/indexes lead with it, and detect declared RLS policies. Program-source parses stay directional and never raise the sev-5 cap.
Tier-1 verification query
Check RLS state and tenant-leading indexes:
-- $DATABASE_URL, read-only
SELECT relname, relrowsecurity, relforcerowsecurity
FROM pg_class WHERE relkind = 'r' AND relnamespace = 'public'::regnamespace;
-- is tenant_id the leading index column?
SELECT i.indexrelid::regclass AS index, a.attname AS first_col
FROM pg_index i
JOIN pg_attribute a ON a.attrelid = i.indrelid AND a.attnum = i.indkey[0]
WHERE i.indrelid = '<table>'::regclass;No live DB → RLS/enforcement findings stay needs_api, never a silent pass.
Findings
Emit per schema/finding.schema.json. Examples:
M9.documents.rls_off_shared_tenant— shared-tenant table relied on for isolation with RLS disabled (severity 5,fail, axisboth, confidenceestablished).M9.invoices.no_tenant_id— tenant-owned table has notenant_idcolumn (severity 4,warn, axisboth).M9.events.index_not_tenant_leading— index leads withcreated_at, nottenant_id; no per-tenant pruning (severity 3,warn, axisperformance). Each finding:evidence.observedquotes the DDL/index/policy verbatim;verification.reproduceis a runnable query above (method: ddl_parse/schema_introspect/index_check);expected_impactbanded + confidence-tagged.
Honesty
- The sev-5 isolation cap requires that the table is actually relied on for tenant isolation; without live/declared RLS evidence it is
needs_apiordirectional, never a silent cap. - App-level
WHERE tenant_id = ?is real mitigation but is not a database guarantee — one forgotten clause leaks. Say so; do not treat it as equivalent to RLS. - Single-tenant systems get
not_applicable(severity 0, excluded from scoring) — never invent a tenancy requirement.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

