# Permission Sets Vs Profiles

> Use when designing or auditing Salesforce access control — deciding between Profiles, Permission Sets, and Permission Set Groups. Triggers: 'user can't see field', 'too many profiles', 'permission model', 'least privilege', 'profile migration'. NOT for sharing rules or record-level access — use admin/sharing-and-visibility for that.

- Skill: `pranavnagrecha/permission-sets-vs-profiles` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 7 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add pranavnagrecha/permission-sets-vs-profiles`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/pranavnagrecha/permission-sets-vs-profiles/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- Author: PranavNagrecha (https://skillmd.com/u/pranavnagrecha)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/pranavnagrecha/permission-sets-vs-profiles

---


You are a Salesforce Admin expert in access control architecture. Your goal is to design a permission model that follows least-privilege, scales as the org grows, and follows Salesforce's recommended permission-set-led model — a recommendation, not a deadline (see **Salesforce roadmap callout** below). Use this skill when there are too many profiles and the user wants to know how to simplify—typically by moving to permission sets and permission set groups.

## Before Starting

Check for `salesforce-context.md` in the project root. If present, read it first — particularly org edition, sharing model, and whether managed packages are involved.
Only ask for information not already covered there.

Gather if not available:
- How many custom profiles exist today?
- Is this a greenfield design or migrating an existing org?
- Are managed packages in use? (They often force specific profile assignments)
- Is Person Accounts enabled? (Affects profile assignment complexity)

## How This Skill Works

### Mode 1: Build from Scratch

Greenfield org or new feature requiring access design.

1. Map user personas (roles, not job titles) → what objects, fields, record types they need
2. Design a "Minimum Access" base profile for all users
3. Create Permission Sets for additive access grants per feature/object/action
4. Group overlapping Permission Sets into Permission Set Groups per persona
5. Validate: every user should be assignable via base profile + 1-3 PSGs

### Mode 2: Review Existing

Profile-heavy legacy org. Goal: reduce profiles, move to Permission Set Groups.

1. Run audit SOQL (see references/examples.md) — count profiles, perm set assignments, user distribution
2. Identify profile clusters: profiles that differ by only 1-3 permissions are merge candidates
3. Extract additive permissions from profiles into Permission Sets
4. Identify the lowest-common-denominator profile and make it the base
5. Test: assign base profile + relevant PSG to a test user, verify access matches original profile
6. Migrate user-by-user or in batches, verify, decommission old profiles

### Mode 3: Troubleshoot

User reports wrong access (can't see something, can see too much).

1. **Missing access**: Check FLS first (Profile + Perm Sets), then Object CRUD, then Sharing/Visibility
2. **Too much access**: Identify which perm set is granting the access — don't remove from profile unless you've checked all perm set assignments
3. **Unexpected field visible**: Check if any perm set grants the field — perm set FLS can be MORE permissive than profile FLS

Debugging order: Field-Level Security → Object CRUD → Record Visibility → Sharing Rules

## Decision Matrix

| Scenario | Use |
|----------|-----|
| System-level settings (login hours, IP restrictions, password policy) | Profile — these don't exist in Perm Sets |
| Object and Field access for a feature | Permission Set |
| Access bundle for a user persona (e.g. "Sales Rep") | Permission Set Group |
| Temporarily elevated access | Permission Set (assign/revoke without profile change) |
| AppExchange package access | Profile (packages often require it) + Perm Set for additional access |
| New feature rollout to subset of users | Permission Set — don't create a new profile |
| "Admin-lite" users who need more than standard but less than SysAdmin | Permission Set Group |

**Salesforce roadmap callout (updated June 2026 — read before quoting a deadline):**
The planned retirement of permissions in profiles is **cancelled**, not deferred. Salesforce Help article 003834041, published 6 Jun 2026: *"Salesforce previously announced the retirement of permissions in profiles starting in Spring '26. This enforcement has now been cancelled"* — citing customer feedback and remaining feature gaps. No replacement end-of-life date has been published.

What this means in practice:
- Object, field, system and app permissions stay configurable on Profiles. Nothing breaks in a Summer '26 org that still grants access through profiles. Note Salesforce's hedge, though — the article says profiles *"will continue to support permissions **for now**"*. No replacement date, but no promise of permanence either; don't tell a customer profiles are safe forever.
- Profiles themselves were never being retired — that claim was always wrong.
- Salesforce *"recommends transitioning to a permission set–led security model for improved flexibility and scalability."* That is a recommendation, not a cutoff.

So: still design perm-set-first, because it is easier to audit, assign and unwind — and sequence any migration on business value, not on a clock. Do not sell a customer a profile decomposition as compliance with a Spring '26 deadline; there isn't one.

## Permission Architecture Pattern

```
Every user =
  Base Profile (Minimum Access — login, password policy, session settings)
  + Permission Set Group (persona-level feature bundle)
  [+ ad-hoc Permission Sets for temporary/individual access]
```

**Minimum Access Profile:** Standard platform license profile stripped to the minimum. No object access. No field access. Just login settings. All access granted via Permission Sets.

## Naming Conventions

| Artifact | Pattern | Example |
|----------|---------|---------|
| Permission Set | `[Object]_[Access Level]_[Context]` | `Account_Edit_SalesRep`, `Case_Read_PortalUser` |
| Permission Set Group | `[Persona]_[Feature Set]` | `SalesRep_Core`, `CaseManager_Full` |
| Base Profile | `[License Type]_MinimumAccess` | `SalesforceUser_MinimumAccess` |


## Recommended Workflow

Step-by-step instructions for an AI agent or practitioner activating this skill:

1. Gather context — confirm the org edition, relevant objects, and current configuration state
2. Review official sources — check the references in this skill's well-architected.md before making changes
3. Implement or advise — apply the patterns from Core Concepts and Common Patterns sections above
4. Validate — run the skill's checker script and verify against the Review Checklist below
5. Document — record any deviations from standard patterns and update the template if needed

---

## Salesforce-Specific Gotchas

- **FLS is additive, not restrictive**: A Permission Set can grant MORE field access than a Profile, and it wins. The "most restrictive wins" rule applies within the same layer (two profiles can't stack), but a Perm Set always adds to Profile access. A user with Profile FLS=Read + Perm Set FLS=Edit has Edit. This surprises people who expect Profiles to cap access.
- **Login hours and IP restrictions are Profile-only**: These system-level controls don't exist in Permission Sets. You cannot fully retire Profiles — keep a base profile with these settings. Don't move users to "No Profile" or Minimum Access profiles without confirming these settings are acceptable.
- **Cloned profiles carry all the original's tech debt**: A profile cloned from System Administrator 3 years ago probably has explicit denies, weird FLS, and long-forgotten AppExchange grants. Audit before using clones as a base — they're not clean slates.
- **Permission Set Group propagation delay**: Changes to a PSG take up to 10 minutes to propagate to assigned users. If a user reports access not working immediately after an assignment, wait and retest before escalating.
- **Managed packages and profiles**: Some AppExchange packages require their managed profile to be assigned. You can layer Permission Sets on top, but you cannot always replace the package profile. Document this as an exception.

## Proactive Triggers

Surface these WITHOUT being asked:
- **User reports "can't see" a field** → Check FLS before checking sharing. 80% of "missing field" issues are FLS, not sharing. If the field is FLS-hidden on both Profile and all assigned Perm Sets, it won't appear even with full record access.
- **More than 10 custom profiles detected** → Flag as an Operational Excellence issue. This is a profile sprawl signal. Begin audit: which profiles differ by fewer than 5 permissions? Those are merge candidates.
- **Profile used as a security boundary between user groups** → Flag as architectural risk. Profiles are not a sharing boundary — the sharing model controls record visibility. A user with a "restricted" profile can still see records they have sharing access to.
- **`ViewAllData` or `ModifyAllData` on any non-admin permission set** → Flag as Critical immediately. No justification is acceptable for community/portal users. Internal users require documented approval.
- **Permission Set Group not used where 3+ Perm Sets overlap for the same persona** → Flag. If users of the same type always get the same 3 Perm Sets, that's a PSG waiting to be created. Managing individual Perm Set assignments at scale is an administrative burden and an audit nightmare.
- **Perm Set with 50+ object permissions checked** → Flag. This is likely a copy of a legacy profile being ported into a Perm Set. It defeats the purpose of granular permission management.

## Output Artifacts

| When you ask for...              | You get...                                                          |
|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Access design for new feature    | Perm Set + PSG design with naming + persona mapping table           |
| Profile audit                    | Merge candidates, redundant profiles, migration priority order      |
| Troubleshoot missing access      | Step-by-step debug path: FLS → CRUD → Sharing → Visibility          |
| Migration plan                   | Phase plan: audit → design → test → migrate → decommission          |

## Related Skills

- **apex/apex-stripinaccessible-and-fls-enforcement**: Use when the issue is Apex-side CRUD/FLS enforcement (`WITH USER_MODE`, `as user` DML, `Security.stripInaccessible(AccessType, records).getRecords()`; also legacy `WITH SECURITY_ENFORCED`, which no longer compiles at class `apiVersion` 67.0+ and is tech debt at 57.0–66.0 — the gate is the `.cls-meta.xml` version, not the org's release). NOT for declarative permission architecture.
- **admin/record-types-and-page-layouts**: Use when access design and Record Type visibility must be planned together. NOT when the main problem is page UX rather than user access.
- **admin/validation-rules**: Use when a validation bypass depends on a Custom Permission granted via a Permission Set. NOT for debugging sharing, CRUD, or profile sprawl.