Catalog
github/github-actions-hardening

github

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 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.

global
New~2.4k
v1.0Saved Jun 26, 2026

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

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.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
Files6
6 files · 14.7 KB

Select a file to preview

Overall Score

88/100

Grade

A

Excellent

Safety

90

Quality

88

Clarity

87

Completeness

85

Summary

A focused GitHub Actions security reviewer that teaches detection and remediation of Actions-specific threats: script injection via ${{ }} expressions, privilege escalation through dangerous triggers (pull_request_target, workflow_run), mutable action references, and over-scoped tokens. The skill guides agents through a structured 7-step hardening workflow, pairs each finding with concrete YAML fixes, and uses a clear threat model grounded in Actions' actual attack surface.

Static Analysis Findings

1 finding

Patterns detected by deterministic static analysis before AI scoring. Hover over any finding code for detailed information and remediation guidance.

Credential Exposure
SEC-020Direct .env File Access2x in 1 file

Direct .env file access

references/injection.md.env2x

Detected Capabilities

read workflow filesanalyze YAML structureidentify script injection sinksaudit token/secret scopingreview action references and pinscheck trigger types and privilege levelsgenerate structured security reportssuggest concrete YAML remediation

Trigger Keywords

Phrases that MCP clients use to match this skill to user intent.

github actions reviewworkflow security auditscript injection detectiongithub token hardeningaction pinningpull request target dangerworkflow_run privilegesecrets in cioidc setupuntrusted input handling

Risk Signals

INFO

SEC-020: References to .env file access in documentation context

references/injection.md
INFO

SEC-020: Credential exposure mentions in reference materials

references/injection.md

Use Cases

  • Auditing existing workflows for script injection, privilege escalation, and supply-chain risks
  • Writing new workflows with hardening best practices from the start
  • Responding to security reports and questions about Actions workflows
  • Ensuring least-privilege GITHUB_TOKEN scoping and secret handling
  • Pinning third-party actions to commit SHAs and setting up Dependabot for automated updates
  • Advising on safe patterns when handling untrusted input (PR titles, branches, comments)
  • Hardening workflows that use pull_request_target or workflow_run triggers
  • OIDC setup for cloud authentication instead of long-lived secrets

Quality Notes

  • Excellent threat model grounding: the skill explains *why* each check matters (e.g., why pull_request_target is dangerous, how ${{ }} interpolation works) rather than just listing rules
  • Seven-step execution workflow is concrete and actionable: each step has a clear entry/exit condition and references supporting documentation
  • Comprehensive reference files covering triggers, injection, permissions, supply-chain, and output format — skill is self-contained
  • Security findings are severity-coded consistently and output rules explicitly forbid false positives (e.g., 'fork pull_request is safe by design')
  • Includes defense-in-depth guidance (e.g., env: rewrites are always recommended, even for non-attacker-controllable values)
  • Clear guidance on least-privilege design (deny-all default, elevate per job) with concrete YAML examples
  • SEC-020 references in injection.md are contextual mentions of .env as an untrusted data source, not actual credential exposure
  • Skill correctly places the burden on the reviewer: 'Never auto-apply changes — present them for review'
Model: claude-haiku-4-5-20251001Analyzed: Jun 26, 2026

Reviews

Add this skill to your library to leave a review.

No reviews yet

Be the first to share your experience.

Add github/github-actions-hardening to your library

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...