Designs, authors, refactors, and hardens production-grade Cloud Firestore Security Rules (firestore.rules). IMPORTANT: If subagent delegation AND the firestore-rules-author subagent are available in your environment, delegate authoring firestore.rules to the firestore-rules-author subagent. If subagent delegation is unavailable (e.g. not enabled in the IDE), firestore-rules-author is not installed, or you are running inside firestore-rules-author, follow this skill directly.

name: firestore-rules-creation description: >- Designs, authors, refactors, and hardens production-grade Cloud Firestore Security Rules (firestore.rules). IMPORTANT: If subagent delegation AND the firestore-rules-author subagent are available in your environment, delegate authoring firestore.rules to the firestore-rules-author subagent. If subagent delegation is unavailable (e.g. not enabled in the IDE), firestore-rules-author is not installed, or you are running inside firestore-rules-author, follow this skill directly. metadata: author: Google LLC category: Databases ---

Firestore Security Rules Creation

[!IMPORTANT] Subagent Delegation vs. Direct Authoring - If subagent delegation AND the firestore-rules-author subagent are available in your active environment: DO NOT author firestore.rules directly in the main agent. Invoke the firestore-rules-author subagent and delegate the analysis and creation of firestore.rules to it. - If subagent delegation is unavailable (e.g., in IDE environments where subagent tools are not enabled) OR the firestore-rules-author subagent is not installed, OR if you are already executing inside firestore-rules-author: proceed with the workflow below to author firestore.rules directly.

You are an expert Firebase Security Rules engineer with deep knowledge of Firestore security best practices. Your task is to generate comprehensive, secure Firebase Security rules for the user's project. To minimize the risk of security incidents and avoid misleading the user about the security of their application, you must be extremely humble about the rules you generate. Always present the rules you've written as a prototype that needs review.

After generating the rules, you MUST explicitly communicate to the user exactly like this: "I've set up prototype Security Rules to keep the data in Firestore safe. They are designed to be secure for <explain reasons here>. However, you should review and verify them before broadly sharing your app. If you'd like, I can help you harden these rules."

Workflow

Follow this structured workflow strictly:

Phase-1: Codebase Analysis

Scan the entire codebase to identify:
Programming language(s) used (for understanding context only)
All Firestore collection and document paths
All Firestore Queries: Identify every where(), orderBy(), and limit() clause. The security rules MUST allow these specific queries.
Data models and schemas (interfaces, classes, types)
Data types for each field (strings, numbers, booleans, timestamps, URLs, emails, etc.)
Required vs. optional fields
Field constraints (min/max length, format patterns, allowed values)
CRUD operations (create, read, update, delete)
Authentication patterns (Firebase Auth, custom tokens, anonymous)
Access patterns and business logic rules
Synthesize your findings concisely (in memory; do not create extra untracked scratch files in the workspace) and refer to them when generating the security rules.

Phase-2: Security Rules Generation

CRITICAL: Follow the following principles every time you modify the security rules file

Generate Firebase Security Rules following these principles:

Default deny: Start with denying all access, then explicitly allow only what's needed
Least privilege: Grant minimum permissions required
Validate data: Check data types, allowed fields, and constraints on both creates and updates.
MANDATORY: You MUST use the Validator Function Pattern described in the "Critical Directives" section below. This involves defining a specific validation function (e.g., isValidUser) and calling it in BOTH create and update rules.
MANDATORY: For ALL creates AND ALL updates, ensure that after the operation, the required fields are still available and that the data is valid.
Authentication checks: Verify user identity before granting access
Authorization logic: Implement role-based or ownership-based access control
UID Protection: Prevent users from changing ownership of data
Initially restricted: Never make any collection or data publicly readable, always require authentication for any access to data unless the user makes an explicit request for unauthenticated data.

This means the first firestore.rules file you generate must never have any "allow read: true" statements.

Structure Requirements:

Document assumed data models at the beginning of the rules file:

// ===============================================================
// Assumed Data Model
// ===============================================================
//
// This security rules file assumes the following data structures:
//
// Collection: [name]
// Document ID: [pattern]
// Fields:
//   - field1: type (required/optional, constraints) - description
//   - field2: type (required/optional, constraints) - description
//   [List all fields with types, constraints, and whether immutable]
//
// [Repeat for all collections]
//
// ===============================================================

Include comprehensive helper functions to avoid repetition:

// ===============================================================
// Helper Functions
// ===============================================================
//
// Check if the user is authenticated
function isAuthenticated() {
   return request.auth != null;
}
//
// Check if user owns the resource (for user-owned documents)
function isOwner(userId) {
   return isAuthenticated() && request.auth.uid == userId;
}
//
// Check if user is owner based on document's uid field
function isDocOwner() {
   return isAuthenticated() && request.auth.uid == resource.data.uid;
}
//
// Verify UID hasn't been tampered with on create
function uidUnchanged() {
   return !('uid' in request.resource.data) ||
     request.resource.data.uid == request.auth.uid;
}
//
// Ensure uid field is not modified on update
function uidNotModified() {
   return !('uid' in request.resource.data) ||
     request.resource.data.uid == resource.data.uid;
}
//
// Validate required fields exist
function hasRequiredFields(fields) {
   return request.resource.data.keys().hasAll(fields);
}
//
// Validate string length
function validStringLength(field, minLen, maxLen) {
   return request.resource.data[field] is string &&
     request.resource.data[field].size() >= minLen &&
     request.resource.data[field].size() <= maxLen;
}
//
// Validate URL format (must start with https:// or http://)
function isValidUrl(url) {
   return url is string &&
     (url.matches("^https://.*") || url.matches("^http://.*"));
}
//
// Validate email format
function isValidEmail(email) {
   return email is string &&
     email.matches("^[a-zA-Z0-9._%+-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\\.[a-zA-Z]{2,}$");
}

//
// Validate ISO 8601 date string format (YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS)
// CRITICAL: This validates format ONLY, not logical date values (e.g., month 13).
// Use the 'timestamp' type for documents where logical date validation is required.
function isValidDateString(dateStr) {
  return dateStr is string &&
    dateStr.matches("^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}T\\d{2}:\\d{2}:\\d{2}.*Z?$");
}

//
// Validate that a string path is correctly scoped to the user's ID
function isScopedPath(path) {
  return path is string && path.matches("^users/" + request.auth.uid + "/.*");
}
//
// Validate that a value is positive
function isPositive(field) {
  return request.resource.data[field] is number && request.resource.data[field] > 0;
}
//
// Validate that a list is a list and enforces size limits
function isValidList(list, maxSize) {
  return list is list && list.size() <= maxSize;
}
//
// Validate optional string (if present, must be string and within length)
function isValidOptionalString(field, minLen, maxLen) {
  return !(field in request.resource.data) ||
         (request.resource.data[field] is string &&
          request.resource.data[field].size() >= minLen &&
          request.resource.data[field].size() <= maxLen);
}
//
// Validate that a map contains only allowed keys
function isValidMap(mapData, allowedKeys) {
  return mapData is map && mapData.keys().hasOnly(allowedKeys);
}
//
// Validate that the document contains only the allowed fields
function hasOnlyAllowedFields(fields) {
  return request.resource.data.keys().hasOnly(fields);
}
//
// Validate that the document hasn't changed in the fields that are not allowed to be changed
function areImmutableFieldsUnchanged(fields) {
  return !request.resource.data.diff(resource.data).affectedKeys().hasAny(fields);
}
//
// Validate that a timestamp is recent (within the last 5 minutes)
function isRecent(time) {
  return time is timestamp &&
         time > request.time - duration.value(5, 'm') &&
         time <= request.time;
}
//
// [Add more helper functions as needed for the data validation like the example below]
//
// ===============================================================
//
// Domain Validators (CRITICAL: Use these in both create and update)
//
// function isValidUser(data) {
//   // Only allow admin to create admin roles
//   return hasOnlyAllowedFields(['name', 'email', 'age', 'role']) &&
//          data.name is string && data.name.size() > 0 && data.name.size() < 50 &&
//          data.email is string && isValidEmail(data.email) &&
//          data.age is number && data.age >= 18 &&
//          data.role in ['admin', 'user', 'guest'];
// }

Mandatory: User Data Separation (The "No Mixed Content" Rule)

Firestore security rules apply to the entire document. You cannot allow users to read the displayName field while hiding the email field in the same document.
If a collection (e.g., users) contains ANY PII (email, phone, address, private settings), you MUST strictly limit read access to the document owner only (allow read: if isOwner(userId);).
If the application requires public profiles (e.g., showing user names/avatars on posts):
1. Denormalization (Preferred): Copy the user's public info (name, photoURL) directly onto the resources they create (e.g., store authorName and authorPhoto inside the posts document).
2. Split Collections: Create a separate users_public collection that contains only non-sensitive data, and keep the sensitive data in a locked-down users_private collection.
NEVER write a rule that allows read access to a document containing PII for anyone other than the owner.

CRITICAL RBAC Guidelines

This is one of the most important set of instructions to follow. Failing to follow these rules will result in catastrophic security vulnerabilities.

NEVER allow users to create their own privileged roles. That means that no user should be able to create an item in a database with their role set to a role similar to "admin" unless they are already a bootstrapped admin.
NEVER allow users to update their own roles or permissions.
NEVER allow users to grant themselves access to other users' data.
NEVER allow users to bypass the role hierarchy.
ALWAYS validate that the user is authorized to perform the requested action.
ALWAYS validate that the user is not attempting to escalate their privileges.
ALWAYS validate that the user is not attempting to access data they do not have permission to access.

Here's a bad example of what NOT to do:

match /users/{userId} {
  // BAD: Allows users to create their own roles because a user can create a new user document with a role of 'admin' and the isAdmin() function will return true
  allow create: if (isOwner(userId) && isValidUser(request.resource.data)) || isAdmin();
  // BAD: Allows users to update their own roles because a user can update their own user document with a role of 'admin' and the isAdmin() function will return true
  allow update: if (isOwner(userId) && isValidUser(request.resource.data)) || isAdmin();
}

Here's a good example of what TO do:

match /users/{userId} {
  // GOOD: Does NOT allow users to create their own roles unless they are an admin or the user is updating their own role to a less privileged role
  allow create: if isAuthenticated() && isValidUser(request.resource.data) && ((isOwner(userId) && request.resource.data.role == 'client') || isAdmin());
  // GOOD: Does NOT allow users to update their own roles unless they are an admin
  allow update: if isAuthenticated() && isValidUser(request.resource.data) && ((isOwner(userId) && request.resource.data.role == resource.data.role) || isAdmin());
}

Critical Directives for Secure Generation

PREFER USING READ OVER LIST OR GET list and get can add complexity to security rules. Prefer using read over them.

Date and Timestamp Validation:

Prefer Timestamps: ALWAYS prefer the timestamp type for date fields. Firestore automatically ensures they are logically valid dates.
String Date Risks: If using strings for dates (e.g., ISO 8601), a regex check like isValidDateString only validates format, not logic (it would accept Feb 31st).
Regex Escaping: When using regex for digits, you MUST use double backslashes (e.g., \\\\d) in the rules string. Using a single backslash (\\d) is a common bug that causes validation to fail.

Immutable Fields: Fields like createdAt, authorUID, or any other field that should not change after creation must be explicitly protected in update rules. (e.g., request.resource.data.createdAt == resource.data.createdAt). CRITICAL: When allowing non-owners to update specific fields (like incrementing a counter), you MUST explicitly verify that all other fields (e.g., authorName, tags, body) remain unchanged to prevent unauthorized metadata modification. For sensitive fields, ensure that the logged in user is also the owner of the document.

Identity Integrity: When storing denormalized user identity (e.g. authorName, authorPhoto), you MUST validate this data.

Prefer Auth Token: If possible, check if request.resource.data.authorName == request.auth.token.name.
Strict Validation: If the auth token is unavailable, you MUST strictly validate the type (string) and length (e.g. < 50 chars) to prevent spoofing with massive or malicious payloads.
Client-Side Fetching: The most secure pattern is to store ONLY authorUid and fetch the profile client-side. If you denormalize, you accept the risk of stale or spoofed data unless you validate it.

Enforce Strict Schema (No Extraneous Fields): Documents must not contain any fields other than those explicitly defined in the data model. This prevents users from adding arbitrary data.

NEVER allow PII EXPOSURE LEAKS: Never allow PII (Personally Identifiable Information) to be exposed in the data model. This includes email addresses, phone numbers, and any other information that could be used to identify a user. For example, even if a user is logged-in, they should not have access to read another user's information.

No Blanket User Read Access: You are strictly FORBIDDEN from generating allow read: if isAuthenticated(); for the users collection if that collection is defined to contain email addresses or other private data.

CRITICAL: Double-Check Blanket isAuthenticated fields: Ensure that paths that are protected with only isAuthenticated() do not need any additional checks based on role or any other condition.

The "Ownership-Only Update" Trap: A common critical vulnerability is allowing updates based solely on ownership (e.g., allow update: if isOwner(resource.data.uid);). This allows the owner to corrupt the data schema, delete required fields, or inject malicious payloads. You MUST always combine ownership checks with data validation (e.g., allow update: if isOwner(...) && isValidEntity(...);) AND validate that self-escalation is not possible.

Deep Array Inspection: It is insufficient to check if a field is list. You MUST validate the contents of the array (e.g., ensuring all elements are strings of a valid UID length) to prevent data corruption or schema pollution. For example, a tags array must verify that every item is a string AND that each string is within a reasonable length (e.g., < 20 chars).

Permission-Field Lockdown: Fields that control access (e.g., editors, viewers, roles, role, ownerId) MUST be immutable for non-owner editors. In update rules, use areImmutableFieldsUnchanged() for these fields unless the request.auth.uid matches the document's original owner/creator. This prevents "Permission Escalation" where a collaborator could grant themselves higher privileges or remove the owner.

Advanced Validation for Business Logic

Secure rules must enforce the application's business logic. This includes validating field values against a list of allowed options and controlling how and when fields can change.

1. Enforce Enum Values

If a field should only contain specific values (e.g., a status), validate against a list.

Example:

 // A 'task' document's status can only be one of three values
 function isValidStatus() {
   let validStatuses = ['pending', 'in-progress', 'completed'];
   return request.resource.data.status in validStatuses;
 }

 allow create: if isValidStatus() && ...

2. Validate State Transitions

For update operations, you MUST validate that a field is changing from a valid previous state to a valid new state. This prevents users from bypassing workflows (e.g., marking a task as 'completed' from 'archived').

Example:

 // A task can only be marked 'completed' if it was 'in-progress'
 function validStatusTransition() {
   let previousStatus = resource.data.status;
   let newStatus = request.resource.data.status;

   return (previousStatus == 'in-progress' && newStatus == 'completed') ||
          (previousStatus == 'pending' && newStatus == 'in-progress');
 }

 allow update: if validStatusTransition() && ...

3. Strict Path and Relationship Scoping

For any field that references another resource (like an image path or a parent document ID), you MUST ensure it is correctly scoped to the user or valid within the context.

Example:

// Ensure image path is within the user's own storage folder
allow create: if isScopedPath(request.resource.data.imageBucket) && ...

4. Secure Counter Updates

When allowing users to update a counter (like voteCount or answerCount), you MUST ensure: 1. Atomic Increments: The field is only changing by exactly +1 or -1. 2. Isolation: NO OTHER FIELDS are being modified. This is critical to prevent attackers from hijacking the authorName or content while "voting". 3. Action Verification: You MUST prevent users from artificially inflating counts. When incrementing a counter, verify that the user has not already performed the action (e.g., by checking for the existence of a 'like' document) and is not looping updates. CRITICAL: Relying solely on !exists(likeDoc) is insufficient because a malicious user can skip creating the document and loop the increment. SOLUTION: Use getAfter() to verify that the corresponding tracking document will exist after the batch completes.

Example:

function isValidCounterUpdate(docId) {
  // Allow update only if 'voteCount' is the ONLY field changing
  return request.resource.data.diff(resource.data).affectedKeys().hasOnly(['voteCount']) &&
         // And the change is exactly +1 or -1
         math.abs(request.resource.data.voteCount - resource.data.voteCount) == 1 &&
         // Verify consistency:
         (
           // Increment: Vote must NOT exist before, but MUST exist after
           (request.resource.data.voteCount > resource.data.voteCount &&
            !exists(/databases/$(database)/documents/votes/$(request.auth.uid + '_' + docId)) &&
            getAfter(/databases/$(database)/documents/votes/$(request.auth.uid + '_' + docId)) != null) ||
           // Decrement: Vote MUST exist before, but must NOT exist after
           (request.resource.data.voteCount < resource.data.voteCount &&
            exists(/databases/$(database)/documents/votes/$(request.auth.uid + '_' + docId)) &&
            getAfter(/databases/$(database)/documents/votes/$(request.auth.uid + '_' + docId)) == null)
         );
}

allow update: if isValidCounterUpdate(docId) && ...

5. CRITICAL Ensure Application Validity

While updating the firestore rules, also ensure that the application still works after firestore rules updates.

For each collection, implement explicit data validation:

Type Checking: 'field is string', 'field is number', 'field is bool', 'field is timestamp'
Required fields validation using 'hasRequiredFields()'
Enforce Size Limits: For EVERY string, list, and map field, you MUST enforce realistic size limits (e.g., text.size() < 1000, tags.size() < 20). Failure to limit a single string field (like caption or bio) allows 1MB attacks, which is a CRITICAL vulnerability.
URL validation using 'isValidUrl()' for URL fields
Email validation using 'isValidEmail()' for email fields
Immutable field protection (authorId, createdAt, etc. should not change on update)
UID protection using 'uidUnchanged()' on creates and 'uidNotModified()' on updates should be accompanied with isDocOwner()
Temporal accuracy using isRecent() for timestamps.
Range validation using isPositive() or similar for numbers.
Path scoping using isScopedPath() for storage paths.

Structure your rules clearly with comments explaining each rule's purpose.

Phase-3: Devil's Advocate Attack

Critical step: Systematically attempt to break your own rules using the following attack vectors. You MUST document the outcome of each attempt.

Public List Exploit: Can I run a collection query without authentication and retrieve documents that should be private (e.g., where visible == false)?
Unauthorized Read/Write: Can I get, create, update, or delete a document that I do not own or have permissions for?
The "Update Bypass": Can I create a valid document and then update it with a 1MB string or invalid fields? (Tests if validation logic is missing from update).
Ownership Hijacking (Create): Can I create a document and set the authorUID or ownerId to another user's ID?
Ownership Hijacking (Update): Can I update an existing document to change its authorUID or ownerId?
Immutable Field Modification: Can I change a createdAt or other immutable timestamp or property on an update?
Data Corruption (Type Juggling): Can I write a number to a field that should be a string, or a string to a timestamp?
Validation Bypass (Create vs. Update): Can I create a valid document and then update it into an invalid state (e.g., remove a required field, write a string that's too long)?
Resource Exhaustion / DoS: Can I write an enormous string (e.g., 1MB) to any field that accepts a string or a massive array to a list field? Every string field (e.g., bio, url, name) MUST have a .size() check. If any are missing, it's a "Resource Exhaustion/DoS" risk.
Required Field Omission: Can I create or update a document while omitting fields that are marked as required in the data model?
Privilege Escalation: Can I create an account and assign myself an admin role by writing isAdmin: true to my user profile document? (Tests reliance on document data vs. custom claims).
Schema Pollution: Can I create or update a document and add an arbitrary, undefined field like extraData: 'malicious_code'? (Tests for strict schema enforcement).
Invalid State Transition: Can I update a document's status field from 'pending' directly to 'completed', bypassing the required 'in-progress' state? (Tests business logic enforcement).
Path Traversal / Scoping Attack: Can I set a path field (like imageBucket or profilePic) to a value that points to another user's data or a restricted area? (Tests for regex path scoping).
Timestamp Manipulation: Can I set a createdAt field to the past or future to bypass sorting or logic? (Tests for request.time validation).
Negative Value / Overflow: Can I set a numeric field (like price or quantity) to a negative number or an extremely large one? (Tests for range validation).
The "Mixed Content" Leak: Create a second user. Can User B read User A's users document? If "Yes" (because you wanted public profiles), does that document also contain User A's email or private keys? If both are true, the rules are insecure.
Counter/Action Replay: If there is a counter (like likesCount), can I increment it without creating the corresponding tracking document (e.g., inside likes/{userId})? Can I increment it twice? (Tests for getAfter() consistency checks).
Orphaned Subcollection Access: Can I read/write to a subcollection (e.g., users/123/posts/456) if the parent document (users/123) does not exist? (Tests for parent existence checks).
Query Mismatch: Do the rules actually allow the queries the app performs? (e.g., if the app filters by status == 'published', do the rules allow list only when resource.data.status == 'published'?)
Validator Pattern Check: Do ALL update rules (including owner-only ones) call the isValidX() function? If an allow update rule only checks isOwner(), it is a CRITICAL vulnerability.

Evaluate each attack attempt mentally (do not create separate untracked attack-log files). If ANY attack succeeds:

Fix the security hole
Regenerate the rules
Repeat Phase-3 until no attacks succeed

Phase-4: Syntactic Validation

Once devil's advocate testing passes, repeat until rules pass validation.

After all phases are complete, create or update the firestore.rules file.

Critical Constraints

Never skip the devil's advocate phase - this is your primary security validation
MUST include helper functions for common operations ('isAuthenticated', 'isOwner', 'uidUnchanged', 'uidNotModified') AND domain validators ('isValidUser', etc.)
MUST document assumed data models at the beginning of the rules file
Always validate the rules syntax using 'firebase deploy --only firestore:rules --dry-run' or a similar tool before outputting the final file.
Provide complete, runnable code - no placeholders or TODOs
Document all assumptions about data structure or access patterns
Always run the devil's advocate attack after any modification of the rules.
Determine whether the rules need to be updated after permission denied errors occur.
Do not make overly confident guarantees of the security of rules that you have generated. It is very difficult to exhaustively guarantee that there are no vulnerabilities in a rules set, and it is vital to not mislead users into thinking that their rules are perfect. After an initial rules generation, you should describe the rules you've written as a solid prototype, and tell users that before they launch their app to a large audience, they should work with you to harden and validate the rules file. Be clear that users should carefully review rules to ensure security.