Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add divingsbysangam/salesforce-compound-engineering-plugin --skill sf-resolve-pr-feedbackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/divingsbysangam/salesforce-compound-engineering-pluginWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/divingsbysangam/salesforce-compound-engineering-plugin/sf-resolve-pr-feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/divingsbysangam/salesforce-compound-engineering-plugin/sf-resolve-pr-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/divingsbysangam/salesforce-compound-engineering-plugin/sf-resolve-pr-feedback/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/divingsbysangam/salesforce-compound-engineering-plugin/sf-resolve-pr-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/divingsbysangam/salesforce-compound-engineering-plugin/sf-resolve-pr-feedback.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00061 | $0.00680 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00340 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
sf-resolve-pr-feedback scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 45 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
sf-resolve-pr-feedback
Persona dispatch. This skill dispatches personas as isolated subagents — see the
dispatching-parallel-personasskill for the mechanics (isolated subagents, same-response parallelism, same-file-conflict check). The thread-resolver it spawns is thesf-pr-comment-resolverpersona (a writer) atreferences/personas/sf-pr-comment-resolver.md, dispatched one per thread or thread-group — mind the same-file-conflict check when two threads touch one file.
Dispatch sub-agents to evaluate each review thread, classify validity, implement the fix, and respond. Each thread is processed in parallel with metadata-diff awareness.
<feature_description> #$ARGUMENTS </feature_description>
Salesforce Angle
-
Distinguish style-preference comments from governor-limit / FLS / sharing correctness comments.
-
When fix touches metadata (object, field, profile, permset), include the metadata XML diff in the resolution and re-run the affected Apex tests via
sf apex run test. -
When fix touches a trigger or handler, verify the bulk test still passes against 200+ records.
-
When fix involves a callout, confirm Named Credential and
Test.setMockcoverage remain aligned.
Interaction Method
When asking the user a question, use the platform's blocking question tool (AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex, ask_user in Gemini). Fall back to numbered options in chat when no blocking tool is available. Ask one question at a time. Prefer concise single-select choices when natural options exist.
Procedure
This skill follows the standard sf-compound-engineering execution discipline:
- Understand the input — read the
<feature_description>block above and any referenced files, plans, or issues. - Plan a small set of phases — break the work into 2-5 ordered steps that an implementer (or another skill) can verify.
- Apply the Salesforce Angle notes above — these encode the platform-specific considerations (governor limits, sharing context, deploy ordering, FLS, metadata semantics) that distinguish this skill from generic counterparts.
- Use Salesforce-aware contexts and commands — file paths under
force-app/main/default/..., test commands likesf apex run test, deploy commands likesf project deploy validateandsf project deploy start, query the org withsf data querywhen state inspection is needed. - Surface decisions back to the user — when a step requires a choice that materially affects scope or risk, ask using the platform's blocking question tool rather than guessing.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 9d ago First seen · 45 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 037aabbead59
sf-resolve-pr-feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository divingsbysangam/salesforce-compound-engineering-plugin (10 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 680 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
gsd-ns-review
Route to the appropriate quality / review skill based on the user's intent. gsd-code-review-fix was absorbed by gsd-code-review --fix in #2790.
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…
gitnexus
A code-graph analysis add-on for examining an existing codebase, including symbols, call paths, execution flows, and effects across repositories. It can query GitNexus through its command-line or MCP interfaces.
cleanup-code-inspections
Reduce technical debt and improve code quality by systematically resolving static analysis warnings.
superlint
This skill describes the mandatory standard operating procedure for using our internal SuperLint tool. Use this when tasks require fixing code quality issues according to corporate standards.