# AuthKit Product Requirements Document (PRD)
**Document ID:** PHENOTYPE_AUTHKIT_PRD
**Version:** 1.0.0
**Status:** Draft
**Last Updated:** 2026-04-05
**Author:** Phenotype Product Team
**Owner:** Security & Identity Engineering
---
## 1. Executive Summary
### 1.1 Product Vision
AuthKit is the unified authentication and authorization backbone for the Phenotype ecosystem—a comprehensive, security-first toolkit that provides seamless identity management across all Phenotype services and platforms. It enables secure-by-default authentication while delivering an exceptional developer experience.
### 1.2 Mission Statement
To make world-class authentication and authorization accessible to all Phenotype developers, enabling them to build secure applications without becoming security experts—while maintaining the flexibility to meet enterprise-grade compliance requirements.
### 1.3 Business Value
| **Security Posture** | Reduce authentication vulnerabilities | Zero auth-related CVEs |
| **Developer Velocity** | Standardized auth across all services | 80% faster auth implementation |
| **Compliance Readiness** | Built-in audit logging and controls | SOC 2 Type II in 3 months |
| **User Experience** | Seamless SSO across Phenotype apps | <2s login time |
| **Operational Cost** | Centralized identity reduces duplication | 50% reduction in auth code |
### 1.4 Key Capabilities
- **OAuth 2.0 / OIDC**: Full implementation with PKCE for all client types
- **Multi-Provider SSO**: Google, GitHub, Microsoft, Apple, SAML enterprise providers
- **Session Management**: Secure server-side sessions with configurable TTL
- **JWT Access Tokens**: Signed, short-lived tokens for stateless API auth
- **MFA / WebAuthn**: Multi-factor and passwordless authentication support
- **Account Linking**: Seamless identity resolution across multiple providers
- **Audit Logging**: Comprehensive security event logging for compliance
- **Policy Engine Integration**: RBAC and ABAC authorization decisions
### 1.5 Success Criteria
1. **Security**: Zero authentication-related security incidents
2. **Adoption**: 100% of Phenotype services use AuthKit within 12 months
3. **Developer Experience**: <15 minutes to implement OAuth login
4. **Performance**: <100ms token validation latency (p99)
5. **Availability**: 99.99% uptime for authentication services
---
## 2. Problem Statement
### 2.1 Current Pain Points
#### 2.1.1 Inconsistent Authentication Across Services
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Pre-AuthKit Authentication Landscape │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Service A: Custom JWT implementation, vulnerable to none algorithm │
│ Service B: Session-based auth, no CSRF protection │
│ Service C: OAuth with Google only, no PKCE │
│ Service D: API keys in query parameters │
│ Service E: No authentication at all (internal only—maybe) │
│ │
│ Problems: │
│ - Inconsistent security levels │
│ - Users must re-authenticate per service │
│ - No SSO across the ecosystem │
│ - Audit trail fragmented or non-existent │
│ - Each service reinvents the wheel (badly) │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
#### 2.1.2 Security Vulnerabilities
Common issues in custom implementations:
- **JWT "none" algorithm acceptance**
- **Missing CSRF protection in OAuth flows**
- **Insecure session storage (localStorage)**
- **No token rotation or revocation**
- **Missing rate limiting on auth endpoints**
- **Plaintext credential storage**
#### 2.1.3 Compliance Challenges
- **Audit Requirements**: No centralized audit logging
- **Data Residency**: User data scattered across services
- **GDPR**: Incomplete user data export/deletion capabilities
- **SOC 2**: Missing controls and evidence collection
### 2.2 Root Cause Analysis
| No central auth authority | Inconsistent implementations | Code review (ineffective) |
| Security expertise siloed | Teams build auth without expertise | External consultants (expensive) |
| Time pressure | "Good enough" security | Postponed security reviews |
| Missing reusable components | Copy-paste from StackOverflow | None |
### 2.3 Market Opportunity
Existing solutions have gaps:
- **Auth0/Clerk**: Expensive at scale, vendor lock-in
- **Keycloak**: Complex to operate, poor developer experience
- **Firebase Auth**: Google-only ecosystem, limited enterprise features
- **Custom implementations**: Security risks, maintenance burden
AuthKit fills the gap: **Enterprise-grade security with consumer-grade developer experience**, purpose-built for the Phenotype ecosystem.
---
## 3. Target Users & Personas
### 3.1 Primary Personas
#### 3.1.1 Application Developer - "Alex"
- **Role**: Full-stack developer building Phenotype services
- **Goals**: Ship features quickly without becoming a security expert
- **Pain Points**: Complex OAuth flows, confusing session management, token validation headaches
- **Needs**:
- Drop-in authentication SDK
- Clear documentation with copy-paste examples
- Automatic security best practices
- Local development that matches production
**Quote**: *"I just want to add 'Login with Google' to my app. Why do I need to understand PKCE and state parameters?"*
#### 3.1.2 Security Engineer - "Sam"
- **Role**: Security architect responsible for Phenotype platform security
- **Goals**: Ensure consistent security posture across all services
- **Pain Points**: Auditing disparate auth implementations, chasing teams to fix vulnerabilities
- **Needs**:
- Centralized security controls
- Comprehensive audit logging
- Policy enforcement across services
- Threat detection and alerting
**Quote**: *"I need to know that every service is using secure defaults. I don't want to review 50 different auth implementations."*
#### 3.1.3 Platform Engineer - "Priya"
- **Role**: Infrastructure and developer platform lead
- **Goals**: Provide self-service authentication to development teams
- **Pain Points**: Managing multiple identity providers, onboarding new services
- **Needs**:
- Easy provider configuration
- Service onboarding workflows
- Metrics and monitoring
- Automated compliance checks
**Quote**: *"When a new team spins up a service, authentication should work out of the box with our standards."*
#### 3.1.4 End User - "Uma"
- **Role**: Customer using Phenotype applications
- **Goals**: Secure, seamless access to services
- **Pain Points**: Repeated logins, password fatigue, account confusion
- **Needs**:
- Single sign-on across Phenotype apps
- Passwordless authentication options
- Clear security notifications
- Easy account management
**Quote**: *"I want to log in once and access everything. Don't make me remember another password."*
### 3.2 Secondary Personas
#### 3.2.1 Compliance Officer - "Chris"
- **Role**: Regulatory compliance and audit specialist
- **Goals**: Demonstrate security controls for certifications
- **Needs**: Audit trails, access reports, policy documentation
#### 3.2.2 Customer Success - "Cameron"
- **Role**: Customer support and success management
- **Goals**: Help users with account and access issues
- **Needs**: Admin dashboard, user lookup, session management
### 3.3 User Journey Map
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ AuthKit User Journey - Application Developer │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Discovery Integration Production │
│ │ │ │ │
│ ▼ ▼ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────┐ │
│ │ Auth │ │ Install SDK │ │ Monitor │ │
│ │ needed │───────────────▶│ and follow │───────────────▶│ security │ │
│ │ for new │ │ quickstart │ │ metrics │ │
│ │ feature │ │ guide │ │ │ │
│ └─────────┘ └─────────────┘ └──────────┘ │
│ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ ▼ ▼ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────┐ │
│ │ Compare │ │ Configure │ │ Add MFA │ │
│ │ AuthKit │───────────────▶│ OAuth │───────────────▶│ for │ │
│ │ vs │ │ providers │ │ sensitive│ │
│ │ building│ │ │ │ flows │ │
│ │ custom │ │ │ │ │ │
│ └─────────┘ └─────────────┘ └──────────┘ │
│ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ ▼ ▼ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────┐ │
│ │ Review │ │ Test auth │ │ Celebrate│ │
│ │ security│───────────────▶│ flows in │───────────────▶│ working │ │
│ │ features│ │ development │ │ auth │ │
│ └─────────┘ └─────────────┘ └──────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
---
## 4. Functional Requirements
### 4.1 OAuth 2.0 / OIDC Flows (FR-001)
**FR-001.1**: The system SHALL implement OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code Flow with PKCE for all client types.
**FR-001.2**: The system SHALL support Client Credentials flow for service-to-service authentication.
**FR-001.3**: The system SHALL implement token refresh flow with automatic refresh token rotation.
**FR-001.4**: The system SHALL support OIDC for identity token issuance with standard claims.
**FR-001.5**: The system SHALL enforce PKCE for all public clients (SPAs, mobile).
**FR-001.6**: The system SHALL validate redirect URIs against registered allowlists.
**FR-001.7**: The system SHALL generate cryptographically secure state parameters for CSRF protection.
**FR-001.8**: The system SHALL support custom claims in tokens for application-specific data.
**Acceptance Criteria**:
- PKCE code challenge/verifier correctly generated and validated
- Authorization codes expire after 5 minutes (configurable)
- State parameter validated on callback
- Token endpoint responds within 100ms
### 4.2 Identity Providers (FR-002)
**FR-002.1**: The system SHALL support Google OAuth 2.0 provider out of the box.
**FR-002.2**: The system SHALL support GitHub OAuth 2.0 provider out of the box.
**FR-002.3**: The system SHALL support Microsoft OIDC provider out of the box.
**FR-002.4**: The system SHALL support Apple Sign-In with private email relay.
**FR-002.5**: The system SHALL support SAML 2.0 enterprise providers (Okta, Azure AD, OneLogin).
**FR-002.6**: The system SHALL provide a provider abstraction for custom OAuth2/OIDC integrations.
**FR-002.7**: The system SHALL support account linking across multiple providers for the same user.
**FR-002.8**: The system SHALL automatically resolve identity conflicts based on verified email addresses.
**Acceptance Criteria**:
- New providers can be added via configuration (no code changes)
- Account linking is idempotent and secure
- SAML metadata can be imported/exported
### 4.3 Session Management (FR-003)
**FR-003.1**: The system SHALL implement server-side session storage with Redis.
**FR-003.2**: The system SHALL issue secure, httpOnly, SameSite cookies for session transport.
**FR-003.3**: The system SHALL support session TTL with sliding expiration on activity.
**FR-003.4**: The system SHALL provide session revocation capability (logout everywhere).
**FR-003.5**: The system SHALL support concurrent session limiting per user.
**FR-003.6**: The system SHALL detect and prevent session fixation attacks.
**FR-003.7**: The system SHALL provide device fingerprinting for session binding (optional).
**FR-003.8**: The system SHALL emit session lifecycle events (created, accessed, revoked).
**Acceptance Criteria**:
- Session cookies are not accessible via JavaScript
- Session revocation propagates within 5 seconds
- Sliding expiration updates are atomic
### 4.4 Token Management (FR-004)
**FR-004.1**: The system SHALL issue JWT access tokens with RS256 signing.
**FR-004.2**: The system SHALL support configurable access token TTL (default: 15 minutes).
**FR-004.3**: The system SHALL issue refresh tokens with longer TTL (default: 30 days).
**FR-004.4**: The system SHALL rotate refresh tokens on each use (detect reuse).
**FR-004.5**: The system SHALL provide JWKS endpoint for key distribution.
**FR-004.6**: The system SHALL support token introspection for opaque token validation.
**FR-004.7**: The system SHALL provide token revocation (blacklist) capability.
**FR-004.8**: The system SHALL validate token signature, expiration, and audience.
**Acceptance Criteria**:
- Token validation completes in <10ms
- Key rotation doesn't invalidate active sessions
- Revoked tokens are rejected immediately
### 4.5 Multi-Factor Authentication (FR-005)
**FR-005.1**: The system SHALL support TOTP-based MFA (Google Authenticator, Authy).
**FR-005.2**: The system SHALL support SMS-based MFA (Twilio integration).
**FR-005.3**: The system SHALL support WebAuthn / FIDO2 for passwordless authentication.
**FR-005.4**: The system SHALL support recovery codes for account recovery.
**FR-005.5**: The system SHALL allow per-user MFA enrollment and enforcement.
**FR-005.6**: The system SHALL provide MFA challenge flows during authentication.
**FR-005.7**: The system SHALL support "remember this device" for MFA (risk-based).
**Acceptance Criteria**:
- TOTP codes validate within time window
- WebAuthn works on supported browsers
- Recovery codes are single-use and securely generated
### 4.6 Authorization & Policy Engine (FR-006)
**FR-006.1**: The system SHALL integrate with Phenotype policy engine for authorization decisions.
**FR-006.2**: The system SHALL support RBAC (Role-Based Access Control) assignments.
**FR-006.3**: The system SHALL support ABAC (Attribute-Based Access Control) evaluation.
**FR-006.4**: The system SHALL provide OAuth 2.0 scope enforcement.
**FR-006.5**: The system SHALL support fine-grained permissions at resource level.
**FR-006.6**: The system SHALL cache authorization decisions with TTL.
**Acceptance Criteria**:
- Policy evaluation completes in <50ms
- Permission changes propagate within 60 seconds
### 4.7 Audit & Security (FR-007)
**FR-007.1**: The system SHALL log all authentication events: login success/failure, logout, token refresh.
**FR-007.2**: The system SHALL log all authorization decisions with context.
**FR-007.3**: The system SHALL detect and alert on suspicious activity patterns.
**FR-007.4**: The system SHALL implement rate limiting on authentication endpoints.
**FR-007.5**: The system SHALL implement brute force protection with progressive delays.
**FR-007.6**: The system SHALL support breached password detection (Have I Been Pwned API).
**FR-007.7**: The system SHALL provide GDPR-compliant data export and deletion.
**FR-007.8**: The system SHALL support security event webhooks for SIEM integration.
**Acceptance Criteria**:
- Audit logs are immutable and tamper-evident
- Rate limiting prevents credential stuffing
- Alerts trigger within 5 minutes of detection
### 4.8 User Management (FR-008)
**FR-008.1**: The system SHALL provide user profile management API.
**FR-008.2**: The system SHALL support user search and filtering.
**FR-008.3**: The system SHALL provide session management (list, revoke).
**FR-008.4**: The system SHALL support account deletion (GDPR right to be forgotten).
**FR-008.5**: The system SHALL provide admin dashboard for user operations.
**Acceptance Criteria**:
- User operations are auditable
- Account deletion is irreversible and complete
---
## 5. Non-Functional Requirements
### 5.1 Security (NFR-001)
**NFR-001.1**: All tokens SHALL use asymmetric signing (RS256) with key rotation.
**NFR-001.2**: All cookies SHALL be httpOnly, secure, SameSite=Lax minimum.
**NFR-001.3**: All passwords SHALL use Argon2id hashing with memory-hard settings.
**NFR-001.4**: All endpoints SHALL use TLS 1.3 minimum.
**NFR-001.5**: The system SHALL undergo annual penetration testing.
**NFR-001.6**: The system SHALL not log sensitive data (passwords, tokens).
### 5.2 Performance (NFR-002)
**NFR-002.1**: Token issuance SHALL complete in <100ms (p99).
**NFR-002.2**: Token validation SHALL complete in <10ms (p99).
**NFR-002.3**: Authorization decision SHALL complete in <50ms (p99).
**NFR-002.4**: Login page load SHALL complete in <500ms (p99).
**NFR-002.5**: The system SHALL support 10,000+ authentication requests per second.
### 5.3 Availability (NFR-003)
**NFR-003.1**: Authentication service SHALL maintain 99.99% uptime.
**NFR-003.2**: Token validation SHALL work during partial outages (offline validation).
**NFR-003.3**: Redis session store SHALL have multi-zone replication.
**NFR-003.4**: The system SHALL have automated failover within 30 seconds.
### 5.4 Scalability (NFR-004)
**NFR-004.1**: The system SHALL support 1 million+ active users.
**NFR-004.2**: The system SHALL support 100,000+ concurrent sessions.
**NFR-004.3**: The system SHALL support 50+ identity providers.
**NFR-004.4**: The system SHALL support 1000+ registered applications.
### 5.5 Developer Experience (NFR-005)
**NFR-005.1**: SDKs SHALL be available for Python, Go, Rust, TypeScript.
**NFR-005.2**: Documentation SHALL include quickstart guides (<15 min to first login).
**NFR-005.3**: Error messages SHALL be actionable and clear.
**NFR-005.4**: APIs SHALL follow REST/JSON standards with OpenAPI specs.
### 5.6 Compliance (NFR-006)
**NFR-006.1**: The system SHALL support SOC 2 Type II audit requirements.
**NFR-006.2**: The system SHALL support GDPR data export and deletion.
**NFR-006.3**: The system SHALL support HIPAA audit logging (if healthcare mode enabled).
**NFR-006.4**: The system SHALL maintain 7-year audit log retention.
---
## 6. User Stories
### 6.1 Epic: OAuth Implementation
**US-001**: As a developer, I want to add "Sign in with Google" to my application so that users can authenticate with their existing Google accounts.
**Acceptance Criteria**:
```python
# Python SDK example
from authkit import AuthKitClient
auth = AuthKitClient(
base_url="https://auth.phenotype.dev",
client_id="my-app-client-id"
)
# Generate login URL
login_url = await auth.login(provider="google", redirect_uri="/callback")
# Handle callback
user = await auth.handle_callback(code=request.args.get("code"))
# user = {id: "123", email: "user@example.com", name: "User Name"}
```
**US-002**: As a developer, I want to protect my API endpoints with JWT validation so that only authenticated users can access them.
**US-003**: As a security engineer, I want to require PKCE for all mobile app authentication so that authorization codes can't be intercepted and used.
### 6.2 Epic: Enterprise SSO
**US-004**: As an enterprise customer, I want to use my company's Okta instance for SSO so that employees can access Phenotype apps with corporate credentials.
**US-005**: As a platform engineer, I want to configure SAML providers via UI so that I don't need to deploy code changes for new enterprise customers.
### 6.3 Epic: Session Security
**US-006**: As a security engineer, I want to view all active user sessions so that I can detect and terminate suspicious sessions.
**US-007**: As an end user, I want to log out all my devices when I change my password so that stolen sessions can't be used.
### 6.4 Epic: MFA
**US-008**: As a security-conscious user, I want to enable TOTP-based MFA so that my account is protected even if my password is compromised.
**US-009**: As a developer, I want to require MFA for administrative operations so that privileged actions have additional protection.
### 6.5 Epic: Audit & Compliance
**US-010**: As a compliance officer, I want to export audit logs for a date range so that I can provide evidence for security audits.
**US-011**: As a security engineer, I want to receive alerts for multiple failed login attempts so that I can detect brute force attacks.
---
## 7. Feature Specifications
### 7.1 Feature: AuthKit Admin Dashboard
**Description**: Web-based administration interface for managing authentication settings, users, and monitoring security.
**Capabilities**:
- Identity provider configuration (add, edit, test)
- Application registration and client credentials
- User search, profile editing, session management
- Security event monitoring and alerting
- Audit log search and export
- Policy and role management
**UI Mock**:
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ AuthKit Admin Dashboard [User ▼] │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ [Dashboard] [Providers] [Apps] [Users] [Sessions] [Audit] [Settings] │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Login Activity │ │ Active Sessions │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────────┐ │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ 📈 2,345 today │ │ │ │ User │ Device │ Location │ │ │
│ │ │ 98% success │ │ │ │ ─────┼────────┼────────── │ │ │
│ │ │ 12 failed │ │ │ │ Alex │ Chrome │ NYC │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────────┘ │ │ │ Sam │ Safari │ London │ │ │
│ │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ │ Recent Failures: │ │ │ │
│ │ • 192.168.1.1 (3x) │ │ │ │
│ │ • 10.0.0.5 (blocked) │ │ │ │
│ └─────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Identity Provider Status │ │
│ │ ┌────────┬────────┬──────────┬──────────┬────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Google │ GitHub │ Microsoft│ Apple│ SAML: Okta │ │ │
│ │ │ ✅ │ ✅ │ ✅ │ ⚠️ │ ✅ │ │ │
│ │ │ 45% │ 30% │ 15% │ 8% │ 2% │ │ │
│ │ └────────┴────────┴──────────┴──────────┴────────────┘ │ │
│ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
### 7.2 Feature: Developer SDK
**Description**: Language-specific SDKs for easy AuthKit integration.
**SDK Structure**:
```
authkit-python/ # pip install authkit
├── authkit/
│ ├── client.py # Main client
│ ├── decorators.py # @require_auth, @require_scope
│ ├── middleware.py # Flask/FastAPI middleware
│ └── models.py # User, Token, Session
├── examples/
│ ├── flask_app/
│ ├── fastapi_app/
│ └── django_app/
└── tests/
authkit-go/ # go get github.com/phenotype/authkit-go
├── authkit/
│ ├── client.go
│ ├── middleware.go # Gin/Echo/Fiber middleware
│ └── models.go
└── examples/
authkit-rust/ # cargo add phenotype-authkit
└── src/
├── client.rs
├── middleware.rs # Axum/Actix/Tide
└── models.rs
```
### 7.3 Feature: Token Service
**Description**: High-performance token issuance and validation service.
**Architecture**:
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Token Service Architecture │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ ┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ │
│ │ API GW │─────▶│ Token Service│─────▶│ Redis │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ (sessions) │ │
│ └─────────────┘ │ • Issue │ └──────────────┘ │
│ │ • Validate │ │
│ │ • Refresh │ ┌──────────────┐ │
│ │ • Revoke │─────▶│ PostgreSQL │ │
│ │ │ │ (persist) │ │
│ └──────────────┘ └──────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ▼ │
│ ┌──────────────┐ │
│ │ JWKS │ │
│ │ Endpoint │ │
│ └──────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
---
## 8. Success Metrics
### 8.1 Adoption Metrics
| Services using AuthKit | 100% of Phenotype | Service registry analysis |
| Identity providers configured | 5+ | Admin dashboard |
| Daily active authentications | 10,000+ | Token issuance metrics |
| Developer NPS | 50+ | Quarterly surveys |
### 8.2 Security Metrics
| Auth-related CVEs | 0 | Security scans |
| Brute force success rate | <0.1% | Audit log analysis |
| Session hijacking incidents | 0 | Incident tracking |
| MFA enrollment rate | 30%+ | User database |
### 8.3 Performance Metrics
| Token issuance latency | <100ms p99 | APM metrics |
| Token validation latency | <10ms p99 | Middleware timing |
| Login page load time | <500ms | RUM monitoring |
| Auth service uptime | 99.99% | Synthetic monitoring |
### 8.4 Operational Metrics
| Mean time to detect issues | <5 min | Alert latency |
| Mean time to resolve | <30 min | Incident tracking |
| Audit log completeness | 100% | Log validation |
| Failed login detection rate | 99% | Labeled dataset |
---
## 9. Release Criteria
### 9.1 Alpha Release (v0.1.0)
**Must Have**:
- [ ] OAuth 2.0 + OIDC with PKCE
- [ ] Google and GitHub providers
- [ ] Session management with Redis
- [ ] JWT access tokens
- [ ] Python SDK
**Release Checklist**:
- [ ] Security review complete
- [ ] Basic load testing (1k RPS)
- [ ] Documentation complete
- [ ] 3 pilot applications onboarded
### 9.2 Beta Release (v0.5.0)
**Must Have**:
- [ ] All Alpha features
- [ ] Microsoft, Apple providers
- [ ] SAML support
- [ ] MFA (TOTP, SMS)
- [ ] Go SDK
- [ ] Admin dashboard
**Release Checklist**:
- [ ] Penetration test passed
- [ ] Production load testing (10k RPS)
- [ ] 10+ services in production
- [ ] SOC 2 evidence collected
### 9.3 GA Release (v1.0.0)
**Must Have**:
- [ ] All Beta features
- [ ] Rust SDK, TypeScript SDK
- [ ] WebAuthn / passwordless
- [ ] Policy engine integration
- [ ] Full audit logging
- [ ] All Phenotype services migrated
**Release Checklist**:
- [ ] 30-day production burn-in
- [ ] Zero critical security findings
- [ ] SOC 2 Type II certified
- [ ] Complete runbooks and training
- [ ] External security audit passed
---
## 10. Open Questions
### 10.1 Technical Questions
1. **Q**: Should we support password-based authentication or be OAuth-only?
**Context**: Passwords add attack surface but may be needed for some use cases.
2. **Q**: How should we handle cross-service authorization (service mesh)?
**Context**: SPIFFE/SPIRE integration vs custom mTLS.
3. **Q**: Should tokens contain user roles/permissions or just identity?
**Context**: JWT size vs token validation efficiency tradeoff.
### 10.2 Product Questions
4. **Q**: Should AuthKit be available as a standalone product for external customers?
**Context**: Revenue opportunity vs focus on Phenotype ecosystem.
5. **Q**: What is the migration path from existing custom auth implementations?
**Context**: Many services have existing auth that needs migration.
6. **Q**: Should we provide hosted login pages or require self-hosting?
**Context**: Customization vs ease of implementation tradeoff.
### 10.3 Business Questions
7. **Q**: How do we handle multi-tenancy and data isolation?
**Context**: Phenotype org vs customer org separation.
8. **Q**: What is the pricing model for external users?
**Context**: If we open to external developers, how do we charge?
---
## 11. Appendices
### Appendix A: Glossary
| **OAuth 2.0** | Authorization framework enabling third-party applications to obtain limited access to user accounts |
| **OIDC** | OpenID Connect - identity layer on top of OAuth 2.0 |
| **PKCE** | Proof Key for Code Exchange - security extension for OAuth public clients |
| **JWT** | JSON Web Token - compact, URL-safe means of representing claims |
| **SAML** | Security Assertion Markup Language - XML-based identity federation |
| **MFA** | Multi-Factor Authentication - requiring multiple verification methods |
| **WebAuthn** | Web Authentication API for passwordless authentication |
| **JWKS** | JSON Web Key Set - set of keys containing public keys for JWT validation |
### Appendix B: Reference Architectures
#### B.1 Microservices Authentication Flow
```
┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐
│ User │─────▶│ Login │─────▶│ AuthKit │─────▶│ Identity │
│ │ │ Page │ │ Service │ │ Provider │
└──────────┘ └──────────┘ └────┬─────┘ └──────────┘
│ │
│ ▼
│ ┌──────────┐
│ │ Redis │
│ │(session) │
│ └──────────┘
▼
┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐
│ Service │─────▶│ API │─────▶│ JWT │
│ API │ │ Gateway │ │ Validation│
└──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘
```
### Appendix C: Related Documents
- [AuthKit SPEC.md](./SPEC.md) - Technical specification
- [Auth Toolkits SOTA](./docs/research/AUTH_TOOLKITS_SOTA.md) - Research
- [ADR-001: Auth Flow Architecture](./docs/adr/ADR-001-auth-flow.md)
- [ADR-002: Session Management](./docs/adr/ADR-002-session-management.md)
- [ADR-003: Multi-Provider Support](./docs/adr/ADR-003-multi-provider.md)
---
*End of AuthKit PRD - 1,100+ lines*