platform-custom-object-generate

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when you need to:

• Create new custom objects
• Generate custom object metadata XML
• Configure object sharing and security settings
• Set up object features and capabilities
• Troubleshoot deployment errors related to custom objects
• Add, update, or delete a field OR a validation rule on an existing object — any of these may make the object's <description> stale, so you must refresh it (propose + confirm). This applies equally to validation-rule changes, not just fields. See Section 3.B.

Specification

1. Overview and Purpose

This document defines the mandatory constraints for generating CustomObject metadata XML (.object-meta.xml file). The agent must verify these constraints before outputting XML to prevent Metadata API deployment errors.

File extension: .object-meta.xml

🔔 Description freshness — applies to EVERY object change, fields AND validation rules: Whenever you add, update, or delete a field or a validation rule on an object, the <description> may now be stale. Before finishing, refresh it per Section 3.B (propose, confirm with the user, write). A validation-rule change counts exactly like a field change — the change is not done until the description has been reconciled. This is easy to forget on validation-rule edits/deletes — don't.

2. Syntactic Essentials (Tier 1)

The following constraints must be true for the XML body to deploy successfully.

Note: The API Name (fullName) is NOT a tag; it is the filename (e.g., Vehicle__c.object-meta.xml).

Required Elements

Sharing Model Rules

Default: Set <sharingModel> to ReadWrite.

Exception: If this object contains a Master-Detail relationship field, <sharingModel> MUST be ControlledByParent.

Decision Logic:

• IF object has NO Master-Detail field → use ReadWrite
• IF object has Master-Detail field → use ControlledByParent
• IF a Master-Detail field is being added to an existing child object → that existing object's <sharingModel> must also be updated to ControlledByParent

❌ INCORRECT — Will cause error: Cannot set sharingModel to ReadWrite on a CustomObject with a MasterDetail relationship field

<CustomObject xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
  <label>Order Line Item</label>
  <pluralLabel>Order Line Items</pluralLabel>
  <sharingModel>ReadWrite</sharingModel>  <!-- WRONG: Object has a M-D field -->
  <deploymentStatus>Deployed</deploymentStatus>
</CustomObject>

✅ CORRECT:

<CustomObject xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
  <label>Order Line Item</label>
  <pluralLabel>Order Line Items</pluralLabel>
  <sharingModel>ControlledByParent</sharingModel>  <!-- CORRECT -->
  <deploymentStatus>Deployed</deploymentStatus>
</CustomObject>

3. Smart Defaults & Decision Logic (Tier 2)

The agent must choose which features to enable based on the object's intended use case.

A. The Name Field Decision

Text Name Field Example:

<nameField>
  <label>Project Name</label>
  <type>Text</type>
</nameField>

AutoNumber Name Field Example:

<nameField>
  <label>Invoice Number</label>
  <type>AutoNumber</type>
  <displayFormat>INV-{0000}</displayFormat>
  <startingNumber>1</startingNumber>
</nameField>

B. Object Description (Enrichment)

<description>: Mandatory — every Custom Object MUST have one. It must read like human-written documentation, never a generic template ("Object used to track and manage...") or a metadata dump ("Contains 8 fields including Project_Name__c...").

Always compose an enriched description — when creating the object, and again on any change to it: adding, updating, or deleting a field or a validation rule (so it never goes stale). The change — field or validation rule — is never "done" until you've refreshed the object's description. This is not optional; do not ask whether to add a description.

Confirm per change — every time. Propose and confirm on each field/rule change separately. A previous "keep current" applies only to that one change; it is never standing permission to skip the proposal on a later change. Do not infer a preference from an earlier answer — re-propose and re-ask for every new change.

Compose the description (steps below). If the object already has one, use it as a strong signal — preserve the business context it carries (domain, team, intent the schema can't reveal) and fold the new field/rule in rather than discarding it.

Then branch on whether a description already exists:

• No existing description (brand-new object): there is nothing to overwrite — just write the composed description. Do not prompt.

• An existing description (update, delete, or any re-enrichment): never overwrite it silently — you can't tell from the file whether it was hand-written by an admin or generated earlier. Show the proposal, ask, and STOP — wait for the user's reply before writing:

  Proposed description for {Object}: <the enriched description> Current: <the existing description> Use this? (yes / keep current / edit)

  You MUST NOT write the <description> until the user replies — showing the diff is not approval, even when the change looks obvious or minor. Then act: yes → write the proposed text · keep current → leave the existing one untouched (this applies to this change only — re-propose on the next one) · edit → use the user's wording.

Always end with a <description> written.

Composing the description:

1. Classify each field by how it appears in the description:
   • Constrained (required, unique, externalId, restricted picklist) → selective parenthetical: VIN (required, external ID), Color (Red/Green only)
   • Behavioral (formula, roll-up) → describe what it computes: "the Age Years field auto-calculates vehicle age"
   • Relationship (master-detail, lookup) → woven context: "as a child of Account" (never "(Master-Detail to Account)")
   • Standard → label only
2. Compose in this order, using field labels not API names:

   Purpose → key fields → computed fields → validation rules (as business rules) → "Commonly used for {use cases}."

3. Count and trim before writing (required): count the words; aim ~45, hard ceiling 50. If over, tighten wording first, then drop whole sentences in priority order (use cases → rules → computed; never drop sentences 1–2). Recount. Do not write until ≤ 50.

Example (Car, 46 words):

<description>The Car object tracks vehicle inventory and maintenance. It captures Year, VIN (required, external ID), Color (Red/Green only), and Location; the Age Years field auto-calculates vehicle age. VIN is required and Black cars cannot be sold. Commonly used for fleet management, inventory tracking, and service scheduling.</description>

→ For the full workflow and examples, read references/description-enrichment.md.

C. Junction Object Naming

If the object is a many-to-many link between two parents, name the object by combining the two parent entities to ensure the schema remains intuitive.

Examples:

• Position_Candidate__c (links Position and Candidate)
• Job_Application__c (links Job and Application)

D. Feature Enablement (Clean XML)

To maintain "Clean XML," only include optional tags when deviating from the Salesforce platform default of false.

Scenario A: User-Facing Objects (Apps, Trackers, Business Entities)

• Trigger: The object is intended for direct user interaction
• Action: Set <enableSearch>, <enableReports>, <enableActivities>, and <enableHistory> to true

Scenario B: System-Facing Objects (Junctions, Background Logs)

• Trigger: The object exists for technical associations or background data
• Action: Omit these tags to keep the UI clean and the XML lean

4. Critical Constraints & Common Failures

Reserved Words

Never use reserved words as API names for Custom Objects or Custom Fields:

Relationship Cap

Do not create more than 2 Master-Detail relationships for a single object. If a third relationship is required, use a Lookup instead.

XML Root Element

Do NOT include the <fullName> tag at the root of the .object-meta.xml file. The API name is derived from the filename.

❌ INCORRECT:

<CustomObject xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
  <fullName>Vehicle__c</fullName>  <!-- WRONG: Remove this -->
  <label>Vehicle</label>
</CustomObject>

✅ CORRECT:

<CustomObject xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
  <label>Vehicle</label>
  <!-- fullName comes from filename: Vehicle__c.object-meta.xml -->
</CustomObject>

Validation Rule Naming Convention

Validation rule names follow different conventions than custom fields.

Rules:

• Must contain only alphanumeric characters and underscores
• Must begin with a letter
• Cannot end with an underscore
• Cannot contain two consecutive underscores
• Must NOT end with __c (unlike custom fields)

❌ INCORRECT:

<validationRules>
  <fullName>Require_Start_Date__c</fullName>  <!-- WRONG: Has __c suffix -->
  <active>true</active>
  <errorMessage>Start Date is required.</errorMessage>
  <formula>ISBLANK(Start_Date__c)</formula>
</validationRules>

Error: The validation name can only contain alphanumeric characters, must begin with a letter, cannot end with an underscore...

✅ CORRECT:

<validationRules>
  <fullName>Require_Start_Date</fullName>  <!-- CORRECT: No __c suffix -->
  <active>true</active>
  <errorMessage>Start Date is required.</errorMessage>
  <formula>ISBLANK(Start_Date__c)</formula>
</validationRules>

Naming Pattern Reference:

5. Verification Checklist

Before generating the Custom Object XML, verify:

Syntactic Checks

• Are both <label> and <pluralLabel> present?
• Is <deploymentStatus> set to Deployed?
• Is <visibility> set to Public?
• Does <nameField> include both <label> and <type>?
• If <type> is AutoNumber, are <displayFormat> and <startingNumber> included?

Sharing Model Check (Critical)

• Does this object have a Master-Detail relationship field?
  • If YES → <sharingModel> MUST be ControlledByParent
  • If NO → <sharingModel> should be ReadWrite

Constraint Checks

• Is the API name free of reserved words?
• Are there 2 or fewer Master-Detail relationships?
• Is <fullName> absent from the XML root?

Validation Rule Checks (if applicable)

• Do validation rule names NOT end with __c?
• Do validation rule names follow alphanumeric + underscore pattern?

Description Enrichment Quality Checks

• Opens with "The {Object} object..." + business purpose (not "Object used to track and manage...")
• Uses field labels, never API names; no "Contains N fields including" dump
• Formulas/rollups described by behavior; validations stated as business rules; relationships as context
• Includes common use cases ("Commonly used for...") and is under 50 words
• Folded any current description's business context into the proposed one (didn't discard it)
• For an existing description (update/delete/re-enrich), STOPPED and waited for the user's reply before writing — did not treat showing the diff as approval

Architectural Checks

• Is <description> present? (Enriched per Section B — proposed and confirmed with the user before writing.)
• Are <enableSearch> and <enableReports> set to true if user-facing?
• Does the filename match the intended API name?

Reference File Index