Skip to main content
skill GitHub Copilot official · GitHub

github-actions-hardening — GitHub Copilot skill: install guide

Reviews .github/workflows/*.yml against the Actions threat model linters miss: attacker-controlled text pasted into run:, privileged triggers running fork code, unpinned actions.

Install into GitHub Copilot · Skills CLI (Vercel) All methods and platforms ↓
npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill github-actions-hardening
Open on GitHub

What github-actions-hardening does

The skill walks a workflow in order. It classifies every on: trigger by trust level, lists the ${{ }} expressions inside run: blocks and actions/github-script, audits permissions:, checks each uses: reference, then looks at secret and output handling.

The reason it exists: the runner expands ${{ }} into the script before the shell reads it. An issue titled "; <attacker-command> # gets concatenated into your shell command. A general linter stays quiet because the YAML itself is the vulnerable code.

Five reference files carry the detail: references/triggers-and-privilege.md, references/injection.md, references/permissions-and-tokens.md, references/supply-chain.md, references/report-format.md. Findings arrive as a severity table, then grouped by file with the offending YAML and a before/after fix. Nothing is applied automatically. Start with the pull_request_target and workflow_run jobs — those carry a write token and secrets.

What it helps with

  • spot ${{ }} that pipes an issue title into a run: step
  • separate fork-safe pull_request jobs from privileged ones
  • pin third-party actions to a full commit SHA
  • cut GITHUB_TOKEN down to the scopes a job actually uses
  • stop untrusted values leaking into $GITHUB_ENV and step outputs

Example prompts for the agent

  • Review `.github/workflows/ci.yml` for script injection and risky triggers
  • Pin every `uses:` to a full SHA and keep the version in a comment
  • Why is `pull_request_target` dangerous in this workflow, and how do I split it?

How to install github-actions-hardening

1Skills CLI (Vercel)

npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill github-actions-hardening

2GitHub CLI

gh skill install github/awesome-copilot github-actions-hardening

3Manually: put the files in place

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

From the same set554

The whole set →
git-commit official github This skill reviews Git changes, stages related files, and creates Conventional Commits. Use it when you want an agent to make one commit or split work into separate commits. GitHub Copilot 47,165installs excalidraw-diagram-generator official github Turn a plain-language description into an Excalidraw diagram. Useful for mapping processes, system structure, and relationships between entities. GitHub Copilot 31,639installs multi-stage-dockerfile official github This skill guides GitHub Copilot in writing multi-stage Dockerfiles for different languages and frameworks. Use it when the final runtime image should contain fewer build dependencies. GitHub Copilot 29,688installs documentation-writer official github Skill that turns the agent into a technical writer following the Diátaxis framework: tutorials, how-to guides, reference, and explanation. Proposes structure before writing. GitHub Copilot 27,757installs prd official github Turns a feature idea into a structured PRD with user stories, technical requirements, and risks. Use it when planning a software feature or an AI-powered one. GitHub Copilot 24,035installs refactor official github This skill reshapes existing code without changing its external behavior. Use it for gradual cleanup of large functions, duplication, weak types, and code smells. GitHub Copilot 22,321installs java-springboot official github Gives GitHub Copilot Spring Boot development practices, from project layout to tests and security. Use it when writing or reviewing Java application code. GitHub Copilot 21,272installs create-readme official github This skill reviews a project and creates a structured README.md. Use it when the repository needs clear documentation based on its actual files and code. GitHub Copilot 19,081installs

Similar

secops-detection-engineering official Google LLC This skill authors, validates, tests, and deploys YARA-L 2.0 rules in Google SecOps. Use it to examine detection coverage gaps. Claude Code Gemini CLI CX Codex 1,900installs secops-cases official Google LLC Manage Google Security Operations SOAR cases, from queue review and alert grouping to investigation notes, status changes, and closure. Claude Code Gemini CLI CX Codex 1,900installs protect-mcp-setup Tom Farley This skill configures Cedar checks for tool calls and Ed25519-signed receipts. Use it when you need policy-gated actions and an audit trail that can be verified offline. Claude Code CX Codex Cursor 6,000installs review-agent-setup Tom Farley This skill gates AI review actions behind manual human approval before pull requests or CI pipelines change. Every attempt generates an Ed25519-signed receipt for offline auditing. Claude Code CX Codex Cursor 5,200installs google-cloud-filestore-log-troubleshooting official google Diagnoses Google Cloud Filestore mount failures, access errors, and network timeouts. Use it when an NFS share stops mounting from a VM, GKE pod, or another supported workload. Claude Code Gemini CLI CX Codex 1,600installs git-guardrails-claude-code Matt Pocock This skill adds a Claude Code hook that stops risky Git commands before they run. Use it when an agent must not push or discard working-tree changes. Claude Code 499,069installs ponytail-review DietrichGebert ponytail-review reviews a change beyond the diff, checking connected code, bugs, risks, load, tests, speed, and unnecessary code. Use it for PRs and commits. Claude Code CX Codex Cursor +1 56,300installs ponytail-audit DietrichGebert It audits a repository and ranks bugs, risks, and redundant code in a one-shot report. Use it when you need a review without code changes. Claude Code CX Codex Cursor +1 44,800installs

Questions about github-actions-hardening

How do I install github-actions-hardening in GitHub Copilot?

Run npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill github-actions-hardening. The skill file then sits at .github/skills/github-actions-hardening/SKILL.md.

What does github-actions-hardening do?

It audits GitHub Actions workflows for Actions-specific risks: ${{ }} injection into run: steps, privileged triggers, token scope, mutable action references, secret handling. You get a severity table plus before/after fixes; nothing is applied for you.

Which triggers does the skill flag as privileged?

pull_request_target, workflow_run, issue_comment and issues. They run in the base repository context with a read/write token and access to secrets, yet an outside contributor can trigger them.

Source text

SKILL.md · MIT
---
name: github-actions-hardening
description: 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 issues", "why is pull_request_target dangerous here?", "pin my actions", or "lock down GITHUB_TOKEN permissions". Covers script injection via ${{ }} interpolation, pull_request_target / workflow_run privilege escalation, SHA-pinning of third-party actions, least-privilege permissions, GITHUB_ENV/GITHUB_OUTPUT injection, secret exposure, OIDC over long-lived credentials, and self-hosted runner exposure on public repositories.
---

# 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:

```yaml
- 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

| Severity | Meaning | Example |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 🔴 CRITICAL | Token/secret theft or RCE reachable by an outside contributor | `pull_request_target` checking out and running fork code; `${{ github.event.* }}` in a `run:` on a privileged trigger |
| 🟠 HIGH | Exploitable supply-chain or scope problem | Third-party action on a mutable tag/branch; `write-all` permissions; injection sink on `issue_comment` |
| 🟡 MEDIUM | Risk under conditions or chaining | Missing `permissions:` block; secret reachable by a non-fork PR author |
| 🔵 LOW | Hardening gap, low direct risk | First-party action not SHA-pinned; `persist-credentials` left default on a non-privileged job |
| ⚪ INFO | Observation, not a vulnerability | Version 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.md` — `GITHUB_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`

© github · MIT · github/awesome-copilot

See also

Project sponsors

Companies that keep this analytics open
Gold sponsor

Impressions, clicks and code copies — open statistics. We keep the numbers public for the same reason NeBlask itself is public. Become a sponsor