Dx Code Analyzer Custom Rule Create
Create custom Code Analyzer rules for Regex (pattern matching), PMD (XPath/AST for Apex and metadata XML), and ESLint (LWC/JavaScript/TypeScript). Use when users want to enforce coding standards, ban patterns, detect hardcoded values, govern metadata, or add rules not in the built-in set. TRIGGER when: user says 'create a rule', 'ban System.debug', 'enforce naming convention', 'detect hardcoded IDs', 'custom rule', 'xpath rule', 'regex rule', 'add a PMD rule', 'enforce a policy', 'create a check for', 'flag this pattern', 'make a rule that catches', 'metadata rule', 'check permissions', 'enforce API version', 'eslint rule', 'lwc rule', 'override rule threshold', 'customize complexity', or describes a pattern to enforce. DO NOT TRIGGER when: user wants to run a scan (use dx-code-analyzer-run), configure engines (use dx-code-analyzer-configure), or explain existing rules (use dx-code-analyzer-run).
- Skill ID
- forcedotcom/sf-skills/dx-code-analyzer-custom-rule-create
- Publisher
- forcedotcom
- Repository
- sf-skills
- Installs
- 0
- Files
- 24
- Synced
- Sep 23, 2026
Open any RiverX project, open the Skills panel in the chat, and search for this identifier. The files are fetched from the source repository at install time.
forcedotcom/sf-skills/dx-code-analyzer-custom-rule-createInstalls these files- SKILL.md
- assets/pmd-ruleset-template.xml
- examples/metadata-xml-example-fields-api.md
- examples/metadata-xml-example-flows.md
- examples/metadata-xml-example-permissions.md
- examples/metadata-xml-examples.md
- examples/regex-examples.md
- examples/xpath-examples.md
- references/advanced-pmd-patterns.md
- references/apex-ast-reference.md
- references/eslint-custom-plugins.md
- references/eslint-rules-discovery.md
- references/eslint-tier2-configurable.md
- references/eslint-tier3-custom-plugins.md
- references/metadata-xml-rules.md
- references/regex-rule-schema.md
- references/troubleshooting.md
- references/xpath-patterns-governor-limits.md
- references/xpath-patterns-method-calls.md
- references/xpath-patterns-security.md
- references/xpath-patterns-structure.md
- references/xpath-patterns.md
- scripts/create-pmd-rule.js
- scripts/create-regex-rule.js
What this skill tells the agent
dx-code-analyzer-custom-rule-create: Custom Code Analyzer Rule Authoring
Ecosystem: This skill is part of a 3-skill Code Analyzer suite —dx-code-analyzer-run(scans & results) ·dx-code-analyzer-configure(setup, config, CI/CD) ·dx-code-analyzer-custom-rule-create(custom rule authoring).
Use this skill when the user needs to create a custom rule that enforces a pattern not covered by Code Analyzer's built-in rules. Supports Regex engine (text pattern matching) and PMD engine (structural XPath queries against the AST).
When This Skill Owns the Task
Use dx-code-analyzer-custom-rule-create when the work involves:
- Creating a new custom rule for Code Analyzer (any engine)
- Enforcing team-specific coding standards via static analysis
- Banning specific patterns (System.debug, hardcoded IDs, TODOs)
- Writing XPath expressions for PMD rules (Apex or metadata XML)
- Writing regex patterns for the Regex engine
- Setting up custom ESLint rules/plugins for LWC/JavaScript
- Enforcing metadata governance (API versions, field descriptions, dangerous permissions)
- Overriding built-in rule thresholds (CyclomaticComplexity, ExcessiveParameterList, etc.)
- Organizing multiple rules into shared rulesets
- Iterating on a custom rule that isn't matching correctly
Delegate elsewhere when the user is:
- Running a scan against existing rules →
dx-code-analyzer-runskill - Configuring engines, prerequisites, CI/CD →
dx-code-analyzer-configureskill - Explaining what an existing built-in rule means →
dx-code-analyzer-runskill - Writing Apex code or tests →
generating-apex/running-apex-testsskills
Required Context to Gather First
Ask for or infer:
- What pattern to catch — what code should be flagged? (If user selected code in their IDE, the selection IS the answer — do not re-ask.)
- What to allow — any exceptions? (test classes, specific contexts)
- File scope — which file types? (.cls, .trigger, .js, all?)
- Severity — how critical? (default: 3/Moderate)
If the user selected code (IDE selection context present), treat it as the pattern definition. Skip clarification unless genuinely ambiguous about what aspect of the selection to target.
If the request is vague with NO selection ("add a rule for best practices"), ask ONE clarifying question:
"What specific pattern should this rule flag?"
Hard Constraints
These are non-negotiable rules. Violating any of them is a skill failure regardless of whether the output happens to work.
- ALWAYS run `ast-dump` before writing XPath. No exceptions. Do not use node names from memory, references, or prior conversations. The AST is the source of truth — run
sf code-analyzer ast-dump, read the output, then write XPath that matches what you see. Even for "well-known" patterns like SOQL-in-loop, run ast-dump first. If you skip this step and the rule works, it is still a process failure.
- ALWAYS use the scripts to create rules. For regex rules, ALWAYS use
create-regex-rule.js. For PMD rules, ALWAYS usecreate-pmd-rule.js. Do NOT manually editcode-analyzer.ymlto add rule definitions — regex patterns in YAML cause escaping failures (quotes inside quotes, backslashes getting eaten). The scripts handle YAML serialization correctly every time.
- NEVER manually edit `code-analyzer.yml` after a script writes to it — even to fix a bad value. The scripts produce correctly-escaped YAML. If you then rewrite or restructure the file, you WILL break the escaping. If the user added top-level config (like
ignores.files), leave it alone too — only touch what you wrote.
If a script's output looks wrong (rule fails to validate, YAML parse error, stray characters in the regex):
- DO NOT patch the YAML by hand. That is exactly the failure mode this constraint exists to prevent.
- Always delete the broken rule's entire YAML block, then re-invoke the script with corrected arguments. Removing a block you just wrote does not violate this rule; rewriting fields inside it does.
- If the script accepted bad input and produced bad output, the input was wrong (e.g.,
--regex "/.../ g"with a stray space — the flags must be/gexactly, no whitespace). Re-invoke with the corrected argument. - If you genuinely believe the script has a bug, STOP and surface it to the user. Do not hand-edit as a workaround.
- `--regex` must be `/pattern/flags` with NO whitespace. The script trims and validates flags strictly — only
g,i,m,s,u,y./pat/ g(with a space) is rejected; so is/pat/x(invalid flag) and/pat/(no flags). The global flaggis mandatory. If validation fails, fix the argument — do NOT bypass by writing YAML directly.
- ALWAYS validate after creation. Run
sf code-analyzer rules --rule-selector <engine>:<name>before testing. IfFound 0 rules, the YAML didn't parse — delete the block, fix the argument, re-invoke the script.
- ALWAYS test against a sample file. Confirm at least one true positive and one true negative.
For regex rules, the negative sample MUST NOT contain the pattern text anywhere — including inside comments and string literals. Regex engines scan raw text; // no System.debug here IS a match for /System\.debug/g. Trace your pattern against the negative file mentally before running it.
- Create rules ONE AT A TIME, sequentially. When the user requests multiple rules, create each rule individually through the full workflow (create → validate → test positive → test negative) before starting the next one. Do NOT batch-create rules — if one fails, it corrupts the config for all subsequent rules. Complete each rule end-to-end, confirm it works, then move to the next.
- For regex rules, exclude test classes via `ignores.files` — `regex_ignore` does NOT do this.
regex_ignoreis a per-LINE filter (the line must match BOTH the rule and the ignore pattern); it cannot exclude an entire test class. If the user's intent is "skip test classes," add a top-levelignores.filesblock with globs like"**/*Test.cls"AFTER all rules are created — do not interleave config edits with script invocations.
Engine Selection
| Pattern Type | Engine | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Text/string pattern (TODO, hardcoded ID, keyword) | Regex | Simple, fast, no Java needed |
| Apex code structure (method calls, nesting, SOQL in loops) | PMD/XPath (language=apex) | Understands AST, not fooled by comments/strings |
| Metadata XML governance (API version, permissions, descriptions) | PMD/XPath (language=xml) | Structural XML matching with namespace handling |
| LWC/JavaScript/TypeScript patterns | ESLint* | Standard JS tooling, plugin ecosystem |
| Both could work (Apex/metadata only) | Regex first | Simpler to create and maintain |
\ For ESLint:* ALWAYS check Tier 1 (built-in rules) and Tier 2 (configurable rules) BEFORE creating a custom plugin. See references/eslint-rules-discovery.md.
"Both could work → Regex first" NEVER applies to JavaScript/LWC/TypeScript files. JS/LWC/TS patterns MUST use ESLint — Regex cannot distinguish code from comments/strings in JS and produces false positives. Do NOT rationalize Regex for JS files based on "simplicity" or "no npm dependencies."
Tell the user which engine you chose and why. Respect their preference if they disagree.
Excluding Test Classes — Strategy by Engine
When a rule should NOT apply to test classes, the approach differs by engine:
| Engine | How to exclude test classes | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PMD (Apex) | Add [not(ancestor::UserClass[ModifierNode[@Test = true()]])] to the XPath | Structural exclusion — works perfectly, no config changes needed |
More from forcedotcom
Use this skill in a project
Open any RiverX project, search the Skills panel for forcedotcom/sf-skills/dx-code-analyzer-custom-rule-create, and install it in one click.
