SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC salesforce-flow-design

Salesforce Flow architecture decisions, flow type selection, bulk safety validation, and fault handling standards. Use this skill when designing or reviewing Record-Triggered, Screen, Autolaunched, Scheduled, or Platform Event flows to ensure correct type selection, no DML/Get Records in loops, proper fault connectors on all data-changing elements, and appropriate automation density checks before deployment.

github/awesome-copilot Agent Skills author: github MIT 1 file body ≈ 1 624 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 28 h ago

Salesforce Flow architecture decisions, flow type selection, bulk safety validation, and fault handling standards.

As a process C 62/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, failures and branches, running it twice

AnalyzerSalesforceSales and CRMInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: GitHub Copilot / VS Code Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
94/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
84
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
62/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 1 more place: RA-Skills

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 96): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 62/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 11 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 21 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1624 tokens

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 411: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 15 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 21 items
    • +4Has examples (5 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.