payment-webhook-reviewer

name	payment-webhook-reviewer
description	Review payment webhooks for signature verification, replay and duplicate handling, ordering, durable processing, retries, and reconciliation.
version	1.0.0
since	2026-08-27
last_modified	2026-08-27
authors	["platform-engineering"]
stability	stable
min_platform_version	{"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"}
deprecated_since	null
replaces	null
supersedes	[]
changelog	[{"version":"1.0.0","date":"2026-08-27","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}]

Payment Webhook Reviewer

Purpose

Review payment webhook endpoints for signature verification on the raw payload, replay and duplicate handling, event ordering, durable queues, fast acknowledgement, retries, and reconciliation. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

Goal and behavioral contract

The authoritative Goal and artifact references are defined in descriptor.yaml. Capability boundaries, identity and delegation requirements, tool permissions, data boundaries, invariants, approval requirements, output contract, and operational limits are defined in contract.yaml. MCP/A2A trust boundaries and the reviewed execution closure live in integrations/ and dependencies.yaml; ASPS and assurance requirements live in assurance.yaml.

Treat those declarations as mandatory execution constraints. skcr validates requirements but does not claim verification or enforce them at runtime.

When to use

• payment webhook processing decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects payment webhook processing artifacts such as webhook endpoint, signature verification routine, event deduplication store, durable event queue, event-ordering policy, webhook replay test.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as forged webhook, replayed event, duplicate fulfillment, out-of-order state regression, acknowledgement timeout, dropped event.
• Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
• Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.

Operating model

1. Identify the relevant payment webhook processing artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as invalid-signature test, duplicate-event test, out-of-order event test, queue persistence evidence, provider delivery log, reconciliation result.
3. Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
4. Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
5. Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.
6. Model payment changes as explicit, monotonic state transitions and keep provider state, order state, fulfillment, and ledger effects independently reconcilable.
7. Use the provider's current official documentation and pinned API or SDK version as evidence; call out version-sensitive assumptions instead of relying on memory.