Partner Community Requirements

Use this skill when a project needs to define the functional and configuration requirements for a Salesforce PRM implementation built on Experience Cloud. It covers the full requirements surface: license selection, partner tier hierarchy, deal registration approval flow, lead distribution assignment rules, MDF budget tracking, and co-marketing content entitlement per tier.

---

Before Starting

Gather this context before working on anything in this domain:

• Confirm whether the org has Partner Community or Partner Community Plus licenses. Customer Community licenses do not support deal registration or PRM features — this is the single most common scoping error.
• Establish the partner tier model upfront (names, count, promotion/demotion criteria). Tier drives sharing rules, feature access, MDF eligibility, and content entitlement — retrofitting tiers after build is expensive.
• Clarify whether deal registration is gated by a formal approval process and who approves (channel manager, regional VP, automated). Approval chain length directly affects flow design.
• Understand whether MDF budgets will live in Salesforce custom objects or in an external finance system. In-Salesforce tracking requires custom object design before PRM build begins.
• Determine the lead distribution model: push (Salesforce assigns leads to partners) vs. pull (partners claim leads from a pool). Each model uses different configuration primitives.

---

Questions to Ask Before Configuring

Ask these before anything is written down. Each one closes a gotcha in references/gotchas.md, and each answer becomes a row in the design artefact of references/worked-examples.md.

Ask	Why it matters	What a good answer adds
"Which partner-portal licence is actually on the contract?"	Account.IsPartner, Lead.PartnerAccountId and Opportunity.PartnerAccountId are documented as available only when PRM is enabled or digital experiences is enabled and the org holds partner portal licences (Object Reference, Account.IsPartner)	Whether the design may reference PartnerAccountId at all, and the licence line item per tier
"How many decision layers exist inside one partner firm?"	UserRole.PortalRole is a restricted picklist — Executive, Manager, User, PersonAccount — so a partner account stacks at most three roles	A role depth per tier instead of an invented role tree
"Which records must a partner see that they do not own — and is Lead one of them?"	The SharingSet AccessMapping.object list does not include Lead, so lead-pool visibility needs a different mechanism	One named mechanism per object, chosen from a documented set
"Is the Partner Account on a deal declared by the channel manager, or derived from who owns it?"	Lead.PartnerAccountId / Opportunity.PartnerAccountId are read-only and set from the owning partner user; making them writable is the org-wide CommunitiesSettings.enableRelaxPartnerAccountFieldPref switch	Whether the registration flow needs an ownership-transfer step, and whether an org pref changes
"Does fund tracking need per-claim audit, or just a number on the tier sheet?"	PartnerMarketingBudget, PartnerFundAllocation, PartnerFundRequest and PartnerFundClaim are standard objects from API v41.0 — a custom object model is a choice, not a necessity	A standard-vs-custom decision with a stated reason
"What happens the day a partner firm is terminated?"	Flipping Account.IsPartner from true to false disables up to 15 partner portal users and permanently deletes the account's partner portal roles and groups	The offboarding order: reassign, deactivate, then flag — never the reverse
"Must partner users inside one firm be invisible to each other?"	SharingSettings.enablePortalUserVisibility overrides org-wide defaults for same-account portal users, and enabling it requires a Salesforce Support case	A dated support case in the plan, or an explicit decision not to need one

What a proper set of PRM requirements adds over just writing "we want a partner portal": every tier has a licence it can actually be provisioned on, every object a partner can reach has one named sharing mechanism that is capable of carrying it, deal attribution survives conversion because ownership transfer is a designed step, and terminating a partner is a reversible sequence rather than a one-way delete of their portal roles.

---

Core Concepts

License Requirements and What They Gate

PRM is delivered through the Partner Central Experience Cloud template. UNVERIFIED (2026-09-05): the "Partner Central" template name does not appear in the Metadata API Developer Guide, the Object Reference or the App Limits cheat sheet, and the Network metadata type has no template field at all — so the template cannot be read from, or asserted by, a retrieved package. Confirm it from the site's Experience Builder settings before relying on the name.

The documented licence keys for partner users are:

UserLicense.LicenseDefinitionKey	Licence	Notes
PID_Partner_Community	Partner Community	Member-based. On the documented sharing-set licence list
PID_Partner_Community_Login	Partner Community Login	Login-based; 10 API calls per licence per 24 h vs 200 for member-based
PID_STRATEGIC_PRM	Gold Partner	Legacy PRM licence still enumerated by the API
POWER_PRM	Partner	Legacy PRM licence still enumerated by the API

"Partner Community Plus" is named as a licence in the Apex Developer/Reference documentation but is not among the LicenseDefinitionKey values above. UNVERIFIED (2026-09-05): Partner Community Plus is named in the Apex Reference Guide (Login Discovery availability) but appears in neither the Object Reference's LicenseDefinitionKey list nor the SharingSet licence list in the Metadata API Guide. Confirm the entitlement on the org's Company Information page before designing anything on it — in particular, do not assume it can use sharing sets.

What the licence actually gates is narrower and more concrete than "PRM features":

• Account.IsPartner, Lead.PartnerAccountId and Opportunity.PartnerAccountId are each documented as available "if Partner Relationship Management is enabled or if digital experiences is enabled and you have partner portal licenses". Without a partner portal licence there is no partner account on a lead, so nothing downstream of PartnerAccountId exists to design.
• Sharing sets are documented as available with a licence list that includes Partner Community.
• AccountBrand (partner account branding) requires "a Partner Community or Customer Community Plus license".
• ProcessDefinition — the approval-process definition — is readable by "Portal and communities users with the Customer Community Plus and Partner Community licenses".

Partner users are Contacts on an Account with IsPartner = true. Set User.ContactId, not User.AccountId: AccountId is read-only and derived from the Contact, and the Contact "must have a value in the AccountId field or an error occurs".

CommunitiesSettings.enableEnablePRM ("allows admins to enable partner users", API v48.0+) is the org switch underneath all of this. See references/worked-examples.md §4c for the settings XML.

Deal Registration Flow: Lead → Approval → Opportunity

Deal registration in Partner Central follows a defined object lifecycle:

1. Partner submits a deal registration record (backed by the Lead object in standard PRM, or a custom object in some implementations).
2. The submitted Lead enters an approval process. The approval process routes to the channel manager or an automated queue based on criteria (territory, deal size, product).
3. Ownership transfers to a named partner user — this is the step most designs omit, and it is what makes attribution work.
4. On approval and acceptance, the Lead is converted to an Opportunity. Opportunity.PartnerAccountId then derives from the owning partner user; it is read-only and cannot be stamped by a Flow.
5. On rejection, the partner receives a notification and may resubmit with updated information.

Lead.PartnerAccountId and Opportunity.PartnerAccountId carry the properties Filter, Group, Nillable, Sort — no Create, no Update — and are documented as "ID of the partner account for the partner user that owns this lead / opportunity… If the owner… isn't a partner user, this field has no value." Making them editable is the org-wide CommunitiesSettings.enableRelaxPartnerAccountFieldPref switch, not a field-level permission.

Key constraint: deal registration requires the Lead record to exist before conversion. You cannot register against an existing Opportunity directly in standard PRM. Any requirement to register deals that are already past the Lead stage requires a custom solution or the Channel Revenue Management product.

Duplicate prevention relies on Lead duplicate rules. These must be configured before launch — otherwise partners can register the same deal multiple times, creating channel conflict.

Lead Distribution

Lead distribution delivers inbound or marketing-generated leads to qualified partners. There are two models:

• Push (assignment rule-based): Salesforce evaluates lead assignment rules on lead creation or reassignment. Rules match on criteria such as geography (state/country fields), product interest (lead source or product picklist), partner tier, and capacity (custom formula-based logic). The lead is assigned to a partner queue or directly to a partner user.
• Pull (lead pool / lead inbox): Leads are placed in a shared queue visible to eligible partners. Partners claim leads from the pool. Pull requires careful sharing rule design so that only eligible partners (by tier or territory) can see the pool.

Lead distribution does not function correctly without a defined partner tier and territory model. Criteria-based rules that reference partner tier require a lookup from the Lead to the partner Account tier field, which requires a cross-object formula or a trigger/flow to stamp tier on the lead at assignment time.

Partner Tier Management

Partner tiers (commonly Gold / Silver / Bronze or Registered / Authorized / Premier) are the structural backbone of a PRM implementation. Tier drives:

• Feature access: Gold partners may have access to deal registration and the lead pool; Bronze partners may only have access to co-marketing assets.
• Fund eligibility: Higher tiers receive larger marketing-fund allocations, tracked on the standard PartnerMarketingBudget / PartnerFundAllocation objects or on custom equivalents.
• Co-marketing content entitlement: Content visibility in the portal is controlled by sharing rules scoped to a tier-based public group or a record-level share. Profile or permission set alone is insufficient because content entitlement varies within the same license type.
• Approval routing: Approval processes can route differently based on tier — Gold deals may auto-approve below a threshold while Silver deals always require manual review.

Tier has two documented homes, and the choice is a decision to record rather than a default:

• Standard: ChannelProgram ("a channel program that vendors use to market and sell their products through channel partners"), ChannelProgramLevel ("a level, based on member experience, in a channel program") and ChannelProgramMember.LevelId — all available from API v41.0.
• Custom: a picklist on the partner Account, referenced by assignment rules, sharing rules, approval criteria and content entitlement. Simpler to report on and easier to use in rule criteria.

Tier is not the same thing as role depth. Roles inside a partner firm come from UserRole.PortalRole, a restricted picklist with exactly Executive, Manager, User, PersonAccount — so at most three stacked levels per partner account, regardless of how many tiers the programme has.

MDF and Co-Marketing

Market Development Funds (MDF) are budget allocations made to partners to fund co-marketing activities. Salesforce ships standard objects for the budget → allocation → request → claim chain, all available from API version 41.0:

Object	What the Object Reference says it represents
PartnerMarketingBudget	"a budget that provides funds to channel partners for selling and marketing products and services"
PartnerFundAllocation	"allocated funds from a partner marketing budget for channel partners"
PartnerFundRequest	"a request for funds from the partner marketing budget by a channel partner"
PartnerFundClaim	"a claim of funds from the partner marketing budget by a channel partner"

Start there. A custom MDF_Budget__c / MDF_Request__c / MDF_Claim__c model is a legitimate choice — the standard objects have a fixed field set and one hard reporting limitation (see below) — but it is a decision that needs a written reason, not the default.

The limitation to check first: "The ChannelPartnerId field isn't supported for formula fields, custom buttons, or custom links for the PartnerFundAllocation object. This limitation also applies to the PartnerMarketingBudget and PartnerFundRequest objects." Any fund requirement phrased as a formula that pulls partner attributes onto the claim is unbuildable as written on the standard objects.

Co-marketing assets (templates, brand assets, campaign collateral) are surfaced in the portal via CMS Content or Salesforce Files with sharing rules based on partner tier. Content entitlement rules must be defined before the portal build begins.

---

Common Patterns

Pattern 1: Multi-Tier Deal Registration with Differential Approval Routing

When to use: The org has 3+ partner tiers with different deal registration privileges (e.g., Gold auto-approves deals under $50K; Silver always goes to manual review).

How it works:

1. Store partner tier as a picklist on the partner Account (Tier__c).
2. Create a custom Partner_Account__c lookup on Lead and a cross-object formula Partner_Tier__c = Partner_Account__r.Tier__c. Do not build the formula off the standard PartnerAccountId — it is a read-only derived field, not a designed lookup for your own formulas.
3. Build an approval process on Lead with entry criteria Status = Submitted for Registration.
4. Add approval steps: Step 1 checks Partner_Tier__c = Gold AND Amount < 50000 and routes to auto-approve; Step 2 routes all other leads to channel manager queue.
5. On final approval, transfer Lead ownership to the accepting partner user, then convert. Opportunity.PartnerAccountId derives from the new owner; a Flow cannot write it.
6. On rejection, a Flow sends a notification to the submitting partner user with rejection reason.

Why not the alternative: A single-step approval process with no tier differentiation creates a manual review bottleneck for high-volume Gold partners and degrades partner experience. Auto-approval criteria require the tier field to exist on the Lead at approval time — which requires the formula field in step 2.

Pattern 2: Criteria-Based Lead Distribution to Partner Queue

When to use: The org distributes inbound leads to partners based on geography and product interest and wants assignments to respect partner tier eligibility.

How it works:

1. Define partner tier eligibility for lead distribution (e.g., only Gold and Silver partners receive distributed leads).
2. Create a partner queue for each tier-territory combination (e.g., Gold_West_Queue, Silver_East_Queue). Keep queue count manageable — excessive queues become an administrative burden.
3. Build Lead assignment rules with criteria ordered by specificity: state match + product interest + tier eligibility.
4. Stamp the matched partner queue on the Lead Owner field.
5. Configure portal Lead list views scoped to the partner user's queue membership so partners only see their assigned leads.
6. If pull model is required, expose a shared Lead list view for the eligible tier group (use a public group share on the Lead record rather than a queue).

Why not the alternative: Assigning leads directly to partner user records (rather than queues) breaks when partner users are inactive or at capacity. Queue-based assignment provides an auditable routing layer and allows partner admins to manage queue membership without reconfiguring assignment rules.

---

Decision Guidance

Situation	Recommended Approach	Reason
Partner needs deal registration and lead distribution	Partner Community (member) or Partner Community Login	Account.IsPartner and PartnerAccountId are documented as requiring partner portal licences
Partner logs in a handful of times a year	Partner Community Login	10 API calls per licence per 24 h vs 200 for member-based — sized for occasional use
Partner users must run reports in the portal	CommunitiesSettings.enableNetPortalUserReportOpts plus the report permission	The guide describes external-user reporting as an org preference "with permission", not a licence tier
Deal registration volume is high and most Gold deals auto-qualify	Criteria-based auto-approval for top tier, manual for others	Reduces channel manager workload while preserving governance on mid-market deals
Leads should be claimed by partners, not pushed automatically	Pull model with shared queue and tier-scoped list view	Push assignment requires capacity logic that is expensive to maintain; pull gives partners agency while respecting tier eligibility
MDF tracking must be auditable and tied to campaign outcomes	Standard PartnerMarketingBudget / PartnerFundAllocation / PartnerFundRequest / PartnerFundClaim first	They ship from API v41.0; build custom only when the fixed field set or the ChannelPartnerId formula restriction blocks a stated requirement
Partner needs visibility of records that hang off a related account, not their own	AccountRelationshipShareRule	Its documented EntityType list covers Account, Campaign, Case, Contact, Lead, Order and the four partner fund objects — including the Lead a sharing set cannot reach
Co-marketing assets should only be visible to Gold partners	Sharing rules on CMS Content or Files tied to Gold public group	Profile-only visibility does not vary within a license type; sharing rules are required

---

Recommended Workflow

1. Licence and switch audit — Query UserLicense for the org's actual partner keys (PID_Partner_Community, PID_Partner_Community_Login, and the legacy PID_STRATEGIC_PRM / POWER_PRM). Retrieve Settings members Communities and Sharing and read enableEnablePRM, enablePRMAccRelPref, enableRelaxPartnerAccountFieldPref, enableAccountRoleOptimization, enablePartnerSuperUserAccess and enablePortalUserVisibility. These six flags decide what the rest of the design is allowed to assume — the XML and the guide quotations are in references/worked-examples.md §4c.

2. Fill the tier / licence worksheet and the role plan — Copy §1 and §2 of references/worked-examples.md. Every tier gets a licence and a role depth of 1–3, because UserRole.PortalRole is a four-value restricted picklist. Decide tier storage here: standard ChannelProgramLevel or a custom Account picklist, with the reason written down.

3. Write the partner-portal design YAML — Use the artefact in §3 of references/worked-examples.md. List every object a partner can reach, including the ones set to not-exposed, each with one sharing mechanism from the documented set. The deal-registration block must include an acceptance step and a duplicate_check step; offboarding must include reassign_records and deactivate_user.

4. Run the checker — python3 scripts/check_partner_community_requirements.py --file partner-portal-design.yaml. It fails the design when a tier has no licence or an impossible role depth, when an object is handed to a mechanism that cannot carry it (a sharing set on Lead), when a row has no owner, or when the registration and offboarding flows are incomplete. Point --manifest-dir at a retrieved package to parse networks/*.network-meta.xml and sharingSets/*.sharingSet-meta.xml against the guide's field tables at the same time.

5. Write the acceptance SOQL before the build starts — §9 of references/worked-examples.md has the six queries. A3 and A4 (null PartnerAccountId on approved registrations and open partner-owned opportunities) are the ones that catch the attribution failure this domain is prone to; A6 catches an offboarding leak. Hand them to the build team as the UAT pack.

6. Read references/gotchas.md end to end, then hand off — Confirm each of the eleven behaviours is either designed for or explicitly out of scope. Route the artefacts using the handoff table in §10 of references/worked-examples.md; this skill stops at the specification.

---

Review Checklist

Run through these before marking requirements work complete:

• Partner licence keys confirmed against UserLicense in the target org — not assumed from the contract
• Role depth per tier set to 1–3 against the UserRole.PortalRole picklist
• Partner tier hierarchy documented with tier names, promotion criteria, and feature access matrix
• Deal registration object model selected (Lead-based standard PRM or custom object)
• Approval chain fully mapped per tier including auto-approval thresholds and rejection flow
• Lead duplicate rules defined to prevent multi-registration of the same deal
• Lead distribution model selected (push or pull) with assignment rule criteria documented
• Queue structure defined for push model OR shared pool sharing model defined for pull model
• Fund tracking decided: standard partner fund objects, custom objects with a stated reason, or external
• Ownership-transfer step present in the registration flow so PartnerAccountId is populated
• Offboarding sequence documented: reassign, deactivate, then (only on termination) clear IsPartner
• partner-portal-design.yaml written and scripts/check_partner_community_requirements.py exits 0
• Co-marketing asset entitlement rules defined per tier
• Sharing rule model documented — profile/permission set vs. sharing rule distinction confirmed
• Open decisions logged with owner and target resolution date

---

Salesforce-Specific Gotchas

Non-obvious platform behaviors that cause real production problems:

1. Deal registration requires Lead before Opportunity — Standard PRM deal registration is built on the Lead object. Partners submit a Lead record which is converted to an Opportunity on approval. You cannot register a deal against an existing Opportunity in standard PRM. If the business requires registration of deals already past the Lead stage (e.g., partner-identified opportunities already in the pipeline), a custom solution or the Channel Revenue Management product is required. Attempting to work around this with a custom field on Opportunity breaks the standard conversion flow and audit trail.

2. Tier-based visibility requires sharing rules, not just profiles — All partner users in a tier share the same license type. Profile and permission set alone cannot vary content or record visibility within a tier. Sharing rules scoped to a tier-based public group are required for co-marketing asset entitlement, lead pool visibility, and MDF record access. Administrators who rely only on profiles to control tier-differentiated access will find that all partners see all content.

3. Standard partner fund objects exist, and ChannelPartnerId is not formula-usable — PartnerMarketingBudget, PartnerFundAllocation, PartnerFundRequest and PartnerFundClaim have shipped since API v41.0, so a requirements document that assumes a custom MDF build is skipping an evaluation. The trap on the standard path is different: ChannelPartnerId is documented as unsupported for formula fields, custom buttons and custom links across all three of budget, allocation and request.

4. Lead assignment rules do not natively reference partner tier — Assignment rules evaluate fields on the Lead record; partner tier lives on the partner Account. Route by tier and you need a custom lookup plus a cross-object formula, or a Flow that stamps the value. The standard PartnerAccountId is not the field to build that on: it is read-only and only populated once a partner user owns the record, which is after assignment, not before it.

5. Partner user creation requires Partner Account checkbox — A Contact cannot be enabled as a partner Experience Cloud user unless the parent Account has IsPartner = true. If Accounts are created in bulk without this flag, partner user provisioning fails silently or produces a generic error. Bulk partner onboarding scripts must set the flag before user creation.

---

Output Artifacts

Artifact	Description
PRM requirements document	Full written specification covering license model, tier hierarchy, deal registration flow, lead distribution rules, MDF model, and co-marketing entitlement
Partner tier decision matrix	Table mapping each tier to its feature access, MDF eligibility, lead pool access, and co-marketing content categories
Deal registration flow diagram	Lead → Approval → Opportunity conversion path with approval routing criteria per tier
Lead distribution rule specification	Assignment rule criteria table (push model) or shared pool sharing model (pull model)
MDF custom object data model	Entity definitions for MDF Budget, Request, and Claim with field list and approval process notes

---

Reference Files

File	Read it when
references/worked-examples.md	You are producing the actual artefacts — tier worksheet, role plan, design YAML, Network/SharingSet/Settings XML, onboarding and offboarding runbooks, acceptance SOQL
references/gotchas.md	Before signing off a design, and when a partner-portal behaviour is not what the requirements assumed
references/examples.md	You want two end-to-end scenarios (multi-tier deal registration; push/pull lead distribution) with the reasoning behind each choice
references/llm-anti-patterns.md	You are reviewing PRM requirements an AI assistant produced, or about to generate some
references/well-architected.md	You need the pillar framing, the licence and MDF trade-offs, and the source list behind the platform claims
templates/partner-community-requirements-template.md	You are running the requirements workshop and want the blank worksheet to fill in live
scripts/check_partner_community_requirements.py	After writing the design YAML, and again after retrieving partner metadata from the org

---

Related Skills

• admin/portal-requirements-gathering — run first: persona/licence matrix and access architecture for any portal, partner or customer
• admin/experience-cloud-site-setup — receives the design artefact and builds the site (Network, CustomSite, template selection)
• admin/experience-cloud-guest-access — use to confirm the partner site exposes no public pages, and to design any that must be
• admin/sharing-and-visibility — owns the OWD, sharing set and sharing rule layer this skill's design YAML points at
• admin/lead-management-and-conversion — owns the conversion field mapping and lead process behind the registration flow
• admin/opportunity-management — owns stage, forecast category and the opportunity side of partner attribution
• admin/role-hierarchy-design — creates the per-partner-account portal roles this skill plans the depth of
• admin/duplicate-management — builds the Lead duplicate rule the deal-registration flow depends on
• data/partner-data-access-patterns — implements the partner data access model once this skill has specified it
• security/experience-cloud-security — hardens the portal after the sharing model is agreed
• architect/license-optimization-strategy — prices member vs login partner licences against the tier worksheet