schema-review

When to use

• A migration diff, new migration file, or schema change is under review and the question is scale-shaped: indexes, reversibility, growth, query patterns against the new columns.
• The user asks "will this scale", "review this migration", "check the schema", or a PR touches migrations/, schema.prisma, or raw .sql migration files.
• NOT for runtime performance analysis of live traffic (no APM here — route to performance-analysis) and NOT for authoring a new migration from scratch (route to laravel-migration or the stack-native tool, then come back with the diff).

Procedure

1. Detect the stack surface in the diff: Laravel migrations (database/migrations/*.php), Prisma (schema.prisma + prisma/migrations/**/migration.sql), raw SQL (*.sql). One diff can carry several.

2. Run the deterministic linter on the touched files plus the query surface that references the changed tables:

   npx tsx node_modules/@event4u/agent-config/src/scripts/lint_persistence.ts -- --dir <path> [--stack eloquent|prisma|raw-sql] --format json
   

   The linter emits gate findings (pattern-detected: F1 N+1, F2 index-parity, F3 unbounded reads, F6 migration-safety, F7 growth-budget, F8 audit-coverage, F9 sync-in-handler, F11 non-durable async) and advice findings (heuristics — never treat as blockers).

3. Walk the gap table — for every gate finding decide: fix, or waiver with a reason (// no-index: <reason>, // sync-required: <reason>, -- no-retention: <reason>, …). An empty waiver reason is itself a finding.

4. Check the R-A6/R-A7 invariants by hand where the linter is blind: reversibility of data transformations, retention policy for any new append-only table (the -- retention: <policy> line), backfill plan for new NOT NULL columns on large tables.

5. Report waiver density neutrally — count waivers per rule; state both readings (informed exceptions vs rule misfit) and let the human decide. Density alone is never a verdict.

Output

The review MUST contain:

1. Gap table — one row per finding: rule · file:line · finding · proposed action (fix | waiver | accepted), gate findings first, advice findings clearly marked as advice.
2. Waiver-density line — N waivers across M findings with the two-reading note (informed exceptions vs rule misfit).
3. A one-line verdict: ready / needs fixes / needs human schema decision — never a bare "looks good" without the table.

Gotcha

• The linter proves pattern presence, not instance-level correctness — a flagged Http:: call in a controller may be legitimately sync (then it gets a // sync-required: waiver with a reason), and a clean run does not prove the schema scales. Say what was checked, not more.
• Prisma's @relation fields are indexed implicitly on some connectors and not on others — when the linter reports a missing FK index on a Prisma model, verify the connector before calling it a defect.

Do NOT

• Do NOT gate a review on advice-tier findings (F4 denormalization, F10 event-decoupling heuristics) — they are review inputs, not blockers.
• Do NOT strip or rewrite existing waivers — surface stale-looking ones and ask.
• Do NOT invent index recommendations for columns the query surface never filters or orders by — index parity cuts both ways; unused indexes cost write throughput.