Gha Security Review

GitHub Actions Security Review

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/gha-security-review from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Scope, Threat Model, Confidence, Safe Patterns (Do Not Flag), GitHub Actions Security Review, Limitations.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• You are reviewing GitHub Actions workflows for exploitable security issues.
• The task requires tracing a concrete attack path from an external attacker to workflow execution or secret exposure.
• You need a security review of workflow files, composite actions, or workflow-related scripts with evidence-based findings only.
• Trigger / Pattern - Load Reference
• pullrequesttarget - references/pwn-request.md
• issue_comment with command parsing - references/comment-triggered-commands.md

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Look for actions/checkout with ref: pointing to PR head
2. Look for local actions (./.github/actions/) that would come from the fork
3. Check if any run: step executes code from the checked-out PR
4. Map every ${{ }} expression in every run: step
5. Confirm the value is attacker-controlled (PR title, branch name, comment body — not numeric IDs, SHAs, or repository names)
6. Confirm the expression is in a run: block, not if:, with:, or job-level env:
7. Is there an author_association check?

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Step 2: Check for Vulnerability Classes

Check 1: Pwn Request

Does the workflow use pull_request_target AND check out fork code?

• Look for actions/checkout with ref: pointing to PR head
• Look for local actions (./.github/actions/) that would come from the fork
• Check if any run: step executes code from the checked-out PR

Check 2: Expression Injection

Are ${{ }} expressions used inside run: blocks in externally-triggerable workflows?

• Map every ${{ }} expression in every run: step
• Confirm the value is attacker-controlled (PR title, branch name, comment body — not numeric IDs, SHAs, or repository names)
• Confirm the expression is in a run: block, not if:, with:, or job-level env:

Check 3: Unauthorized Command Execution

Does an issue_comment-triggered workflow execute commands without authorization?

• Is there an author_association check?
• Can any GitHub user trigger the command?
• Does the command handler also use injectable expressions?

Check 4: Credential Escalation

Are elevated credentials (PATs, deploy keys) accessible to untrusted code?

• What's the blast radius of each secret?
• Could a compromised workflow steal long-lived tokens?

Check 5: Config File Poisoning

Does the workflow load configuration from PR-supplied files?

• AI agent instructions: CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, .cursorrules
• Build configuration: Makefile, shell scripts

Check 6: Supply Chain

Are third-party actions securely pinned?

Check 7: Permissions and Secrets

Are workflow permissions minimal? Are secrets properly scoped?

Check 8: Runner Infrastructure

Are self-hosted runners, caches, or artifacts used securely?

Imported: Step 3: Validate Before Reporting

Before including any finding, read the actual workflow YAML and trace the complete attack path:

1. Read the full workflow — don't rely on grep output alone
2. Trace the trigger — confirm the event and check if: conditions that gate execution
3. Trace the expression/checkout — confirm it's in a run: block or actually references fork code
4. Confirm attacker control — verify the value maps to something an external attacker sets
5. Check existing mitigations — env var wrapping, author_association checks, restricted permissions, SHA pinning

If any link is broken, mark MEDIUM (needs verification) or drop the finding.

If no checks produced a finding, report zero findings. Do not invent issues.

Imported: Step 4: Report Findings

#### Imported: Scope

Review the workflows provided (file, diff, or repo). Research the codebase as needed to trace complete attack paths before reporting.

### Files to Review

- `.github/workflows/*.yml` — all workflow definitions
- `action.yml` / `action.yaml` — composite actions in the repo
- `.github/actions/*/action.yml` — local reusable actions
- Config files loaded by workflows: `CLAUDE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `Makefile`, shell scripts under `.github/`

### Out of Scope

- Workflows in other repositories (only note the dependency)
- GitHub App installation permissions (note if relevant)

## Examples

### Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

```text
Use @gha-security-review to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.
```

**Explanation:** This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

### Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

```text
Review @gha-security-review against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.
```

**Explanation:** Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

### Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

```text
Use @gha-security-review for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.
```

**Explanation:** This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

### Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

```text
Review @gha-security-review using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.
```

**Explanation:** This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.



## Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

- Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
- Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
- Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
- Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
- Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
- Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.



## Troubleshooting

### Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

**Symptoms:** The result ignores the upstream workflow in `plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/gha-security-review`, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all.
**Solution:** Re-open `metadata.json`, `ORIGIN.md`, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the `external_source` block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.

### Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

**Symptoms:** Reviewers can see the generated `SKILL.md`, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task.
**Solution:** Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

### Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

**Symptoms:** The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better.
**Solution:** Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.



## Related Skills

- `@00-andruia-consultant` - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
- `@00-andruia-consultant-v2` - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
- `@10-andruia-skill-smith` - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
- `@10-andruia-skill-smith-v2` - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

## Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

| Resource family | What it gives the reviewer | Example path |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `references` | copied reference notes, guides, or background material from upstream | `references/n/a` |
| `examples` | worked examples or reusable prompts copied from upstream | `examples/n/a` |
| `scripts` | upstream helper scripts that change execution or validation | `scripts/n/a` |
| `agents` | routing or delegation notes that are genuinely part of the imported package | `agents/n/a` |
| `assets` | supporting assets or schemas copied from the source package | `assets/n/a` |



### Imported Reference Notes

#### Imported: Threat Model

Only report vulnerabilities exploitable by an **external attacker** — someone **without** write access to the repository. The attacker can open PRs from forks, create issues, and post comments. They cannot push to branches, trigger `workflow_dispatch`, or trigger manual workflows.

**Do not flag** vulnerabilities that require write access to exploit:
- `workflow_dispatch` input injection — requires write access to trigger
- Expression injection in `push`-only workflows on protected branches
- `workflow_call` input injection where all callers are internal
- Secrets in `workflow_dispatch`/`schedule`-only workflows

#### Imported: Confidence

Report only **HIGH** and **MEDIUM** confidence findings. Do not report theoretical issues.

| Confidence | Criteria | Action |
|---|---|---|
| **HIGH** | Traced the full attack path, confirmed exploitable | Report with exploitation scenario and fix |
| **MEDIUM** | Attack path partially confirmed, uncertain link | Report as needs verification |
| **LOW** | Theoretical or mitigated elsewhere | Do not report |

For each HIGH finding, provide all five elements:

1. **Entry point** — How does the attacker get in? (fork PR, issue comment, branch name, etc.)
2. **Payload** — What does the attacker send? (actual code/YAML/input)
3. **Execution mechanism** — How does the payload run? (expression expansion, checkout + script, etc.)
4. **Impact** — What does the attacker gain? (token theft, code execution, repo write access)
5. **PoC sketch** — Concrete steps an attacker would follow

If you cannot construct all five, report as MEDIUM (needs verification).

---

#### Imported: Safe Patterns (Do Not Flag)

Before reporting, check if the pattern is actually safe:

| Pattern | Why Safe |
|---|---|
| `pull_request_target` WITHOUT checkout of fork code | Never executes attacker code |
| `${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}` in `run:` | Numeric only — not injectable |
| `${{ github.repository }}` / `github.repository_owner` | Repo owner controls this |
| `${{ secrets.* }}` | Not an expression injection vector |
| `${{ }}` in `if:` conditions | Evaluated by Actions runtime, not shell |
| `${{ }}` in `with:` inputs | Passed as string parameters, not shell-evaluated |
| Actions pinned to full SHA | Immutable reference |
| `pull_request` trigger (not `_target`) | Runs in fork context with read-only token |
| Any expression in `workflow_dispatch`/`schedule`/`push` to protected branches | Requires write access — outside threat model |

**Key distinction:** `${{ }}` is dangerous in `run:` blocks (shell expansion) but safe in `if:`, `with:`, and `env:` at the job/step level (Actions runtime evaluation).

#### Imported: GitHub Actions Security Review

### Findings

#### [GHA-001] [Title] (Severity: Critical/High/Medium)
- **Workflow**: `.github/workflows/release.yml:15`
- **Trigger**: `pull_request_target`
- **Confidence**: HIGH — confirmed through attack path tracing
- **Exploitation Scenario**:
  1. [Step-by-step attack]
- **Impact**: [What attacker gains]
- **Fix**: [Code that fixes the issue]

### Needs Verification
[MEDIUM confidence items with explanation of what to verify]

### Reviewed and Cleared
[Workflows reviewed and confirmed safe]

If no findings: "No exploitable vulnerabilities identified. All workflows reviewed and cleared."

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.