Source profileQuality 80/100Review permissions

github/awesome-copilot/skills/github-actions-hardening/SKILL.md

github-actions-hardening

Security hardening reviewer for GitHub Actions workflow files (.github/workflows/*.yml). Reasons about the Actions threat model that pattern matchers and general code linters miss — untrusted-input script injection, privileged triggers running fork code, mutable action references, and over-scoped tokens. Use this skill when asked to review, audit, harden, or secure a GitHub Actions workflow, when writing a new workflow, or for any request like "is this workflow safe?", "review my CI for security

Source repository stars
37,126
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
1
Last source update
2026-07-28
Source checked
2026-07-28

Decision brief

What it does—and where it fits

A focused security reviewer for GitHub Actions workflows. It reasons about the Actions-specific threat model — where trust boundaries live in trigger types, token scopes, and string interpolation — rather than the application-code vulnerabilities a general security scanner looks…

Best for

  • Reviewing, auditing, or hardening any file under .github/workflows/
  • Authoring a new workflow and wanting it secure by default
  • A workflow that uses pullrequesttarget, workflowrun, or issuecomment triggers

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot --skill "skills/github-actions-hardening"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "github-actions-hardening" from https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot/blob/9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685/skills/github-actions-hardening/SKILL.md at commit 9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Execution Workflow

    Follow these steps in order for every workflow reviewed.

    push, pullrequest (from same repo) → runs with the contributor's own trustpullrequest from a fork → runs with a read-only token, no secrets (safe by design)pullrequesttarget, workflowrun, issuecomment, issues → run in the context of the
  2. 02

    Step 1 — Map the Triggers and Trust Level

    Read every on: trigger and classify the workflow's privilege:

    push, pullrequest (from same repo) → runs with the contributor's own trustpullrequest from a fork → runs with a read-only token, no secrets (safe by design)pullrequesttarget, workflowrun, issuecomment, issues → run in the context of the
  3. 03

    Step 2 — Hunt for Script Injection

    For every run: block, every script: in actions/github-script, and every input to a custom action, list the ${{ }} expressions and check whether any resolve to attacker-controllable data. High-risk contexts include:

    github.event.issue.title, github.event.issue.bodygithub.event.pullrequest.title, github.event.pullrequest.body, .head.ref, .head.labelgithub.event.comment.body, github.event.review.body
  4. 04

    Step 3 — Check Privileged Triggers Don't Execute Untrusted Code

    If a pullrequesttarget or workflowrun workflow checks out PR/fork code (ref: ${{ github.event.pullrequest.head.sha }}) and then runs it (build, test, install scripts, npm install with lifecycle scripts, etc.), that is remote code execution against a privileged token. Flag it as…

    If a pullrequesttarget or workflowrun workflow checks out PR/fork code (ref: ${{ github.event.pullrequest.head.sha }}) and then runs it (build, test, install scripts, npm install with lifecycle scripts, etc.), that is r…
  5. 05

    Step 4 — Audit permissions:

    If there is no permissions: block, the workflow inherits the repository default, which may be read/write to everything. Flag it. Recommend a top-level permissions: {} (deny-all) or contents: read, then grant the minimum per job (e.g. pull-requests: write only on the job that com…

    If there is no permissions: block, the workflow inherits the repository default, which mayRecommend a top-level permissions: {} (deny-all) or contents: read, then grant the minimumFlag any permissions: write-all or broad write scopes that the steps don't actually need.

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

Runs scripts

medium · line 56

The documentation asks the agent to run terminal commands or scripts.

For every `run:` block, every `script:` in `actions/github-script`, and every input to a custom

Runs scripts

medium · line 145

The documentation asks the agent to run terminal commands or scripts.

`env:`-variable safe pattern for each sink (`run`, `github-script`, action inputs).

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score80/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars37,126SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
github/awesome-copilot
Skill path
skills/github-actions-hardening/SKILL.md
Commit
9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685
License
MIT
Collected
2026-07-28
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

GitHub Actions Hardening

A focused security reviewer for GitHub Actions workflows. It reasons about the Actions-specific threat model — where trust boundaries live in trigger types, token scopes, and string interpolation — rather than the application-code vulnerabilities a general security scanner looks for. Most workflow risks are invisible to language linters because the dangerous code is the YAML itself and the way GitHub expands ${{ }} expressions into a shell before your script runs.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when the request involves:

  • Reviewing, auditing, or hardening any file under .github/workflows/
  • Authoring a new workflow and wanting it secure by default
  • A workflow that uses pull_request_target, workflow_run, or issue_comment triggers
  • Questions about GITHUB_TOKEN permissions or the permissions: key
  • Pinning actions to commit SHAs vs tags vs branches
  • Handling untrusted input (issue titles, PR bodies, branch names, commit messages) in run: steps
  • OIDC / cloud authentication from Actions, or secret handling in CI
  • Self-hosted runners on public repositories
  • Any request like "is this workflow safe?", "secure my CI", or "review this GitHub Action"

The Core Insight

In a workflow, ${{ <expr> }} is expanded by the runner into the script before the shell executes it. So a step like:

- run: echo "Title: ${{ github.event.issue.title }}"

is not passing a variable — it is pasting attacker-controlled text directly into your shell command. An issue titled "; <attacker-command> # is concatenated into the script and executed. This single mechanism is the most common real-world Actions vulnerability, and models routinely generate it. Treat every ${{ }} that contains data an outside contributor can influence as a code-injection sink.

Execution Workflow

Follow these steps in order for every workflow reviewed.

Step 1 — Map the Triggers and Trust Level

Read every on: trigger and classify the workflow's privilege:

  • push, pull_request (from same repo) → runs with the contributor's own trust
  • pull_request from a fork → runs with a read-only token, no secrets (safe by design)
  • pull_request_target, workflow_run, issue_comment, issues → run in the context of the base repository with a read/write token and full access to secrets, but can be triggered by outside contributors. These are the dangerous triggers.

Read references/triggers-and-privilege.md for the full trust matrix.

Step 2 — Hunt for Script Injection

For every run: block, every script: in actions/github-script, and every input to a custom action, list the ${{ }} expressions and check whether any resolve to attacker-controllable data. High-risk contexts include:

  • github.event.issue.title, github.event.issue.body
  • github.event.pull_request.title, github.event.pull_request.body, .head.ref, .head.label
  • github.event.comment.body, github.event.review.body
  • github.event.pages.*.page_name, github.event.commits.*.message, github.event.head_commit.*
  • github.head_ref and any github.event.* field a fork author can set

Read references/injection.md for the complete sink list and the safe-pattern fixes.

Step 3 — Check Privileged Triggers Don't Execute Untrusted Code

If a pull_request_target or workflow_run workflow checks out PR/fork code (ref: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }}) and then runs it (build, test, install scripts, npm install with lifecycle scripts, etc.), that is remote code execution against a privileged token. Flag it as CRITICAL. The safe pattern is to split into two workflows: an unprivileged pull_request workflow that runs the untrusted code, and a privileged workflow_run workflow that only consumes its results.

Step 4 — Audit permissions:

  • If there is no permissions: block, the workflow inherits the repository default, which may be read/write to everything. Flag it.
  • Recommend a top-level permissions: {} (deny-all) or contents: read, then grant the minimum per job (e.g. pull-requests: write only on the job that comments).
  • Flag any permissions: write-all or broad write scopes that the steps don't actually need.

Read references/permissions-and-tokens.md for the per-scope guidance and OIDC setup.

Step 5 — Audit Action References (Supply Chain)

For every uses::

  • Third-party actions (not actions/* or github/*) MUST be pinned to a full 40-character commit SHA, not a tag or branch. Tags and branches are mutable; a compromised upstream action can rewrite v1 to malicious code that runs with your token and secrets.
  • First-party actions/* are lower risk but SHA-pinning is still the hardened recommendation.
  • Flag @main, @master, or any branch reference as HIGH — that is "latest" and can change under you at any time.
  • Note the human-readable version in a trailing comment: uses: foo/bar@<sha> # v2.1.0.

Read references/supply-chain.md for pinning, Dependabot for actions, and artifact/cache risks.

Step 6 — Check Secret and Output Handling

  • No secrets echoed, printed, or written to logs; no set -x / bash -x in steps that touch secrets.
  • Secrets must not be passed to steps that run untrusted code or to untrusted third-party actions.
  • Untrusted multiline data written to $GITHUB_ENV or $GITHUB_OUTPUT can inject environment variables or step outputs — use the random-delimiter heredoc form and never write raw user input.
  • actions/checkout leaves a token on disk by default; set persist-credentials: false when the job later runs untrusted code.

Step 7 — Produce the Report

Output findings using the format in references/report-format.md: a severity summary table first, then grouped findings with file, the exact offending YAML, the risk in plain English, and a concrete before/after fix. Never auto-apply changes — present them for review.

Severity Guide

SeverityMeaningExample
🔴 CRITICALToken/secret theft or RCE reachable by an outside contributorpull_request_target checking out and running fork code; ${{ github.event.* }} in a run: on a privileged trigger
🟠 HIGHExploitable supply-chain or scope problemThird-party action on a mutable tag/branch; write-all permissions; injection sink on issue_comment
🟡 MEDIUMRisk under conditions or chainingMissing permissions: block; secret reachable by a non-fork PR author
🔵 LOWHardening gap, low direct riskFirst-party action not SHA-pinned; persist-credentials left default on a non-privileged job
⚪ INFOObservation, not a vulnerabilityVersion comment missing next to a pinned SHA

Output Rules

  • Always show a findings summary table (counts by severity) first.
  • Group by issue type, not by file.
  • Be exact — quote the offending line and give the line location.
  • Always pair every CRITICAL/HIGH with a concrete corrected YAML snippet.
  • Never claim a fork pull_request is dangerous just because it runs untrusted code — it has no secrets and a read-only token. Reserve CRITICAL for the privileged triggers.
  • If the workflow is already hardened, say so and list what was checked.

Reference Files

Load these as needed:

  • references/triggers-and-privilege.md — Trust matrix for every trigger, why pull_request_target and workflow_run are privileged, and the two-workflow safe pattern.
    • Search patterns: pull_request_target, workflow_run, issue_comment, fork, secrets, read-only token, trust boundary
  • references/injection.md — Full list of attacker-controllable ${{ }} contexts and the env:-variable safe pattern for each sink (run, github-script, action inputs).
    • Search patterns: script injection, github.event, head_ref, issue title, env, intermediate variable, actions/github-script
  • references/permissions-and-tokens.mdGITHUB_TOKEN scopes, least-privilege permissions: recipes per job type, and OIDC for cloud auth instead of long-lived secrets.
    • Search patterns: permissions, GITHUB_TOKEN, write-all, contents: read, id-token, OIDC, least privilege
  • references/supply-chain.md — SHA-pinning third-party actions, Dependabot for github-actions, artifact and cache poisoning across workflow_run, and self-hosted runner exposure.
    • Search patterns: SHA pin, uses, mutable tag, Dependabot, download-artifact, cache, self-hosted runner
  • references/report-format.md — Output template: summary table, finding cards, and before/after remediation blocks.
    • Search patterns: report, format, finding, summary, remediation, before, after

Alternatives

Compare before choosing