running-code-analyzer

Running Code Analyzer Skill

⚠️ CRITICAL: Mandatory Script Usage

Every interaction with Code Analyzer results MUST go through the bundled scripts in <skill_dir>/scripts/. No exceptions.

❌ WRONG — never do this:

# WRONG: inline Python to parse results
python3 -c "import json; data = json.load(open('results.json'))..."
 
# WRONG: inline Node.js to parse results
node -e "const data = require('./results.json')..."
 
# WRONG: jq to filter results
cat results.json | jq '.violations[] | select(.engine=="pmd")'
 
# WRONG: reading the results file directly (it can be 10MB+)

Also forbidden: run_code_analyzer and any mcp__* tool — Bash only.

✅ RIGHT — always do this:

<skill_dir> is the absolute path to the directory containing this SKILL.md. Never use ./scripts/ — that resolves against the user's CWD, not the skill dir.

Any aggregation, filter, or rank question ("which file has the most violations?", "how many PMD issues?", "top rules by count", "break down by severity") is answered by query-results.js — its output already includes topRules, topFiles, and severityCounts.

Overview

This skill translates natural-language requests ("scan for security issues", "check my changes") into the correct sf code-analyzer run command, executes scans across any combination of engines/targets/severities, and presents actionable results. When engine-provided fixes are available, it discovers them, asks for user confirmation, applies them safely, and offers verification. Use it for static analysis, security reviews, AppExchange certification, code-quality checks, and finding duplicates/vulnerabilities in Salesforce projects.

In scope: running scans, parsing/filtering/ranking results, applying engine auto-fixes, diff-based scans, all output formats (JSON/HTML/SARIF/CSV/XML), describing/listing rules, scan-failure troubleshooting.

Out of scope: installing/configuring sf or the plugin (→ configuring-code-analyzer), writing custom rules/engines, AI-generated fixes beyond engine-provided ones, deep refactoring, CI/CD setup (→ configuring-code-analyzer).

Allowed tools: Bash (sf code-analyzer, node, git diff, date), Read, Write, Edit. Forbidden: any MCP tool, Agent tool, web tools, other skills, Python, jq, inline scripts/heredocs. This skill owns the complete scan-fix-verify-query-explain workflow end-to-end.

Command Syntax Rules (READ FIRST — ABSOLUTE)

1. The command is sf code-analyzer run — NOT sf scanner run (deprecated v3).
2. No --format flag. Use --output-file <path>.<ext>; the extension determines the format.
3. Always pass --output-file with a timestamped name (e.g., ./code-analyzer-results-20260512-143022.json) — do not rely on stdout.
4. Foreground only (no run_in_background); timeout 1200000ms for large scans.
5. Invalid v3 flags that cause errors: --format, --engine, --category, --json. Use --rule-selector + --output-file instead.
6. Tool restriction: Bash, Read, Write, Edit only. No MCP tools, no Agent tool, no web tools, no other skills.

Why: the v4+ CLI redesigned the flag interface; v3 flags now error.

Full flag/selector docs: <skill_dir>/references/flag-reference.md.

Prerequisites

User needs: Salesforce CLI (sf), @salesforce/plugin-code-analyzer (v5.x+), Java 11+ (PMD/CPD/SFGE), Node.js 18+ (ESLint/RetireJS), Python 3 (Flow), authenticated org (ApexGuru).

Pre-flight: run sf code-analyzer --help 2>&1 | head -1. If that fails, or if a scan reports an engine startup error (e.g., "PMD failed to start", "java: command not found", "SFGE failed"):

1. Stop — do not attempt to install/diagnose prerequisites yourself.
2. Delegate to configuring-code-analyzer — it handles all setup.
3. After it finishes, return here and re-run the scan.

If a scan fails for other reasons, see <skill_dir>/references/error-handling.md.

Quick Start: Common Patterns

Match the request below; if it matches, jump to Step 3 (Build Command). Otherwise, walk Step 1.

Step 1: Parse the User's Intent

Analyze the request along these 7 dimensions; any can combine.

1.1 ENGINE

PMD/Apex → pmd · ESLint/JS/TS/lint → eslint · Flows → flow · duplicates/CPD → cpd · vulnerabilities/CVE/RetireJS → retire-js · SFGE/data flow → sfge · performance/ApexGuru → apexguru · regex → regex · everything → all · unspecified → Recommended.

1.2 CATEGORY

security/OWASP → Security · performance → Performance · best practices → BestPractices · style/format → CodeStyle · design/complexity → Design · bugs → ErrorProne · docs → Documentation.

1.3 SEVERITY

1=Critical · 2=High · 3=Moderate · 4=Low · 5=Info. "critical only" → 1 · "critical+high" → (1,2) · "moderate and above" → (1,2,3).

1.4 SPECIFIC RULE

If the user names a rule (e.g., "ApexCRUDViolation", "no-unused-vars"): --rule-selector <engine>:<ruleName>, or just <ruleName> if engine is ambiguous.

⚠️ Partial names: --rule-selector requires the exact full rule name (e.g., @salesforce-ux/slds/no-hardcoded-values-slds2, not no-hardcoded-values). No wildcards. If you are not 100% certain, look it up first — do not guess:

Multiple matches → ask the user which. Zero matches → tell the user nothing matched.

1.5 TARGET

specific path → --target <path> · glob ("all Apex") → --target **/*.cls,**/*.trigger · "my changes"/"diff" → git diff --name-only [base]...HEAD, filter to scannable types, pass as --target · "LWC" → --target **/lwc/** · "Flows" → --target **/*.flow-meta.xml · unspecified → omit (entire workspace).

Diff-filtering details: <skill_dir>/references/special-behaviors.md.

1.6 OUTPUT

Default JSON. Only change if the user explicitly asks. Name: ./code-analyzer-results-<YYYYMMDD-HHmmss>.<ext> via TIMESTAMP=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S). Formats: .json (default), .html, .sarif, .csv, .xml.

1.7 COMPARISON / DELTA

"new since main" → git diff --name-only main...HEAD → scan those · "since last commit" → HEAD~1 · "vs develop" → develop...HEAD.

Step 2: Build the Rule Selector

Syntax: : = AND, , = OR, () = grouping.

• Engine only: pmd
• Engine + category: pmd:Security
• Engine + severity: pmd:2
• Complex: (pmd,eslint):Security:(1,2) = (PMD or ESLint) AND Security AND sev (1 or 2)
• Specific rule: pmd:ApexCRUDViolation
• All: all

More: <skill_dir>/references/command-examples.md.

Step 3: Build the Full Command

• Default to timestamped JSON; only change format on explicit request.
• Always pass --include-fixes (enables Step 6 auto-fix).
• Omit --target to scan the whole workspace.
• Diff scans: git diff --name-only → filter scannable types → pass as --target.

Special cases (SFGE/ApexGuru/AppExchange/diff): <skill_dir>/references/special-behaviors.md.

Step 4: Execute the Scan

Use the Bash tool only — never the run_code_analyzer MCP tool.

1. Generate the timestamp via Bash: date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S → e.g. 20260512-143022.
2. Tell the user:

   Starting scan...
   Results: ./code-analyzer-results-20260512-143022.json
   Log:     ./code-analyzer-results-20260512-143022.log
   May take several minutes for large codebases.
3. Run with the literal timestamp baked in (not $TIMESTAMP), foreground, timeout 1200000ms, tee to a .log:

   sf code-analyzer run --rule-selector Recommended \
     --output-file "./code-analyzer-results-20260512-143022.json" \
     --include-fixes 2>&1 | tee "./code-analyzer-results-20260512-143022.log"
4. Exit 0 = success. On error, read both the log file and <skill_dir>/references/error-handling.md.
5. Immediately parse results (Step 5) — do not ask the user what to do next.

Step 5: Parse and Present Results

Run the parse script straight after the scan — do not pause to ask:

node "<skill_dir>/scripts/parse-results.js" "./code-analyzer-results-TIMESTAMP.json"

⚠️ DO NOT:

• ❌ Invent or generate script code yourself
• ❌ Use bare relative paths like node scripts/parse-results.js (won't resolve from user's CWD)
• ❌ Use heredocs or inline script content
• ❌ Use jq as a substitute for the parse script (shell quoting will break)
• ❌ Read the JSON file directly

Presentation template

## Scan Complete
 
**Found X violations** across Y files.
 
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical (1) | X |
| High (2) | X |
| Moderate (3) | X |
| Low (4) | X |
| Info (5) | X |
 
### Top Issues
| # | Rule | Engine | Sev | File | Line |
|---|------|--------|-----|------|------|
| 1 | ApexCRUDViolation | pmd | 2 | AccountService.cls | 42 |
| ... up to 10 most critical |
 
### Top Rules by Frequency
| Rule | Engine | Count |
|------|--------|-------|
| no-var | eslint | 170 |
| ... |
 
Full results: `./code-analyzer-results-20260512-143022.json`

Scale to result size: 0 → "no violations found"; 1–10 → all in one table; 11–50 → severity counts + top 10; 50–5000 → counts + top 10 violations + top 10 rules + top 5 files; 5000+ → same, plus suggest narrowing scope (severity/category/folder). Always end with the output path and offer next actions: filter / explain rule / apply fixes.

Large-result handling: <skill_dir>/references/special-behaviors.md.

Step 6: Apply Engine-Provided Fixes (Post-Scan)

Engine-provided fixes are deterministic (not AI-generated). Flow: vendor filter (if needed) → discover → present → wait for user confirmation → apply → summarize.

6.1 Vendor file filter (when needed)

Run if the user said "fix my code" / "project source", or if top-violation files are vendor libs (jQuery, Bootstrap, *.min.js):

node "<skill_dir>/scripts/filter-violations.js" \
  "./code-analyzer-results-TIMESTAMP.json" \
  "./code-analyzer-results-TIMESTAMP-filtered.json" \
  --report

Report: "Excluded X vendor files (Y violations) — jQuery, Bootstrap, etc. Applying fixes to Z project files only." Use the filtered file in 6.2+. Detection logic: <skill_dir>/references/vendor-file-handling.md.

6.2 Discover

node "<skill_dir>/scripts/discover-fixes.js" "./code-analyzer-results-TIMESTAMP.json"

6.3 Present + ASK (then STOP)

### Engine-Provided Fixes Available
**X of Y violations** have auto-fixes provided by the analysis engine:
 
| Rule | Engine | Sev | Fixable Count |
|------|--------|-----|---------------|
| no-var | eslint | 3 | 170 |
| ... |
 
These are safe, deterministic fixes generated by the engines (not AI-generated).
 
Would you like me to apply these fixes? (yes / no / select specific rules)

⚠️ Stop and wait for the user's reply, even if they originally said "scan and fix everything". Apply only on a fresh "yes" / "apply" / "go ahead" in the next turn.

6.4 Apply

node "<skill_dir>/scripts/apply-fixes.js" "./code-analyzer-results-TIMESTAMP.json"

(Filtered file if 6.1 created one.)

6.5 Summarize (MANDATORY immediately after 6.4)

node "<skill_dir>/scripts/summarize-fixes.js" "./code-analyzer-results-TIMESTAMP.json"

Then present:

### Engine-Provided Fixes Applied Successfully ✓
**Applied X auto-fixes across Y files.**
 
| Severity | Fixes Applied |
|----------|---------------|
| Critical (1) | X |
| ... |
 
| Rule | Fixes Applied |
|------|---------------|
| no-var | 169 |
| ... |
 
Want me to re-run the scan to verify the fixes resolved the violations?

6.6 — Handling the user's choice

• Decline / "no": skip apply, skip summarize. Do not re-scan.
• "Select rules": filter the discovery list to those rules and pass the filtered file to apply-fixes.js.
• "All" / "yes": run apply-fixes.js against the full (or vendor-filtered) results file as-is.

6.7 — Optional re-scan for verification

If the user accepts the offer in 6.5, re-run the same scan with a new timestamp (do not overwrite the original). Compare violation counts before vs. after and show the delta — fixes that resolved cleanly will drop out; remaining violations either need manual remediation or are unrelated.

Step 7: Query and Filter Existing Results

After Step 5, the user may want to drill into specific subsets without re-running the entire scan. This step handles all result-exploration requests.

When to trigger

Activate when the user asks to slice, filter, rank, or explore existing results:

• "Show me just the security violations"
• "What's in AccountService.cls?"
• "Show only PMD issues" / "Filter to critical and high"
• "What ESLint rules fired?" / "Show violations in the lwc folder"
• "Top 20 most severe" / "Which file has the most violations?"
• "What are the most common rules?" / "How many violations per engine?" / "Break it down by severity"

Important: Any question about existing scan results — filtering, ranking, counting, aggregating — MUST use query-results.js. NEVER write inline Python, jq, or ad-hoc scripts to parse the results JSON. The query script already provides topRules, topFiles, and severityCounts in its output.

How to execute

Run the query script against the same results file from Step 4 (no re-scan needed):

node "<skill_dir>/scripts/query-results.js" "./code-analyzer-results-TIMESTAMP.json" [options]

Output format and presentation templates: <skill_dir>/references/post-scan-workflows.md.

Step 8: Describe a Rule

When the user asks "what does this rule mean?" or "how do I fix this?", use this step to look up and explain a specific rule.

When to trigger

• "What is ApexCRUDViolation?"
• "Explain this rule" / "Why is this flagged?"
• "What does no-var mean?"
• "How do I fix OperationWithLimitsInLoop?"
• "Tell me about this violation"

How to execute

node "<skill_dir>/scripts/describe-rule.js" "<rule-name>" [--engine <engine>]

Pass --engine when known (from scan context); omit for a broader search. Returns one of success / multiple_matches / not_found. Status handling and templates: <skill_dir>/references/post-scan-workflows.md.

Step 9: List Available Rules

Triggers: "what security rules are available?", "list all PMD rules", "rules for JavaScript", "Recommended rules", "how many ESLint rules?", "rules for Apex".

node "<skill_dir>/scripts/list-rules.js" "<selector>" [options]

Filters: --engine, --severity, --top (default 100), --count-only. The script pre-validates selector tokens (catches typos like secruity) before calling the CLI. Presentation: <skill_dir>/references/post-scan-workflows.md.

Constraints & Gotchas

Reference File Index

Scripts (always execute via node with the absolute <skill_dir>/ prefix, never Read):

References (read on demand):

examples/ contains output-structure validation and command patterns (basic/large/security scans, fix workflows).