Indeed, the author is framing Access Granted against CanCan/CanCanCan, when Pundit has already picked up the torch of Rails authorization.

Pundit made the design decision to be as close to pure Ruby as possible, and therefore is extremely flexible (similar to the design philosophy of Strong Parameters). Access Granted seems like a step backwards (toward a DSL) from Pundit. So it would take a strong argument to show why Access Granted is preferable to Pundit.

I've used Pundit in my last few projects and loved the simplicity of it. Would recommend to others.

Pundit is excellent, it doesn't tie you to any one model of authorization, it just gives you a standard way to implement your own in a very light-weight fashion.

We were recently working on designing a moderately complicated permissions system, and my impression is that it's impossible to create such a general-purpose engine and gem that covers enough of the cases that you'll have to manage, without creating something that is incredibly complicated to set up and manage. Except for a few standardized domains, you'll always have rules that are easier to express and maintain with some custom, domain-specific code.

Neat idea, you might be able to quickly throw together a really compelling proof-of-concept by building off of https://github.com/RolifyCommunity/rolify, which seems to strike a nice balance of opinionated, flexible, and doing a fair amount of work for you (IE it gets involved in / takes care of the db data modeling).

Interesting, this is very project specific so might be tough to implement for general user-base.

Nice work - your OO style and wrapper is well done. And the OO style makes it easier to do dynamic roles, such as DCI.

You are allowed to mix any roles in any combinations. This shows only a flat hierarchy, but I'd love to explore that in an example sooner than later :)

I thought CanCan was abandoned when Rbates took some time off? https://github.com/ryanb/cancan

That doesn't have anything to do with roles and permissions.