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 ${{ }} expressions into a shell before your script runs.
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when the request involves:
- Reviewing, auditing, or hardening any file under
.github/workflows/
- Authoring a new workflow and wanting it secure by default
- A workflow that uses
pullrequesttarget, workflowrun, or issuecomment triggers
- Questions about
GITHUB_TOKEN permissions or the permissions: key
- Pinning actions to commit SHAs vs tags vs branches
- Handling untrusted input (issue titles, PR bodies, branch names, commit messages) in
run: steps
- OIDC / cloud authentication from Actions, or secret handling in CI
- Self-hosted runners on public repositories
- Any request like "is this workflow safe?", "secure my CI", or "review this GitHub Action"
The Core Insight
In a workflow, **${{ <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)
pullrequesttarget, workflowrun, issuecomment, 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.pullrequest.title, github.event.pullrequest.body, .head.ref, .head.label
github.event.comment.body, github.event.review.body
github.event.pages..pagename, github.event.commits..message, github.event.headcommit.*
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 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 CRITICAL. The safe pattern is to split into two workflows: an unprivileged pullrequest workflow that runs the untrusted code, and a privileged workflowrun 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
$GITHUBENV or $GITHUBOUTPUT 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 |
pullrequesttarget 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 pullrequesttarget
and workflowrun are privileged, and the two-workflow safe pattern. + Search patterns: pullrequesttarget, workflowrun, 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