SKILL·C514BF

assess-github-repo-security

pjt222
Aktualisiert 7 days ago
26
3
26
Auf GitHub ansehen
Dokumentationaiapi

Über

Diese Fähigkeit führt eine schreibgeschützte Sicherheitsprüfung eines GitHub-Repositorys mithilfe der GitHub CLI (`gh api`) durch. Sie analysiert Branch-Schutz, Actions-Berechtigungen und Sicherheitsfunktionen wie Dependabot und CodeQL, und erstellt dann einen PASS/GAP-Bericht, der nach Prioritätsstufen kategorisiert ist. Nutzen Sie sie, um den Sicherheitsstatus eines Repositorys vor Releases, vor der Veröffentlichung als Open Source oder zur Überprüfung von Härtungsmaßnahmen zu bewerten.

Schnellinstallation

Claude Code

Empfohlen
Primär
npx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code
Plugin-BefehlAlternativ
/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac
Git CloneAlternativ
git clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/assess-github-repo-security

Kopieren Sie diesen Befehl und fügen Sie ihn in Claude Code ein, um diese Fähigkeit zu installieren

Dokumentation

Assess GitHub Repository Security

Audit a GitHub repository's security posture, read-only, and classify it against tiered best practices. This skill only reads — it never enables, disables, or changes any setting. Remediation is a separate concern (see harden-github-repo-security).

When to Use

  • Reviewing a repo before open-sourcing it or cutting a release
  • Auditing a public, user-owned repo whose CI auto-commits to the default branch (e.g. via stefanzweifel/git-auto-commit-action + the default GITHUB_TOKEN)
  • Verifying that a hardening change actually took effect
  • Producing a baseline posture report to track over time

Inputs

  • Required: Target repository as OWNER/REPO
  • Required: gh CLI authenticated with an account that has the admin repository role on the target repo (some endpoints 403 otherwise). This is a role requirement, not a need for a broad write-capable token: a fine-grained, single-repo PAT scoped to read-only Administration / Actions / Secret-scanning permissions satisfies the same admin check with far less blast radius if the audit credential is ever leaked or reused in automation
  • Optional: Branch to check for classic protection (defaults to the repo's default_branch)
  • Optional: security_events token scope — needed only to count open Dependabot alerts; the rest works without it

Set a shorthand for every command below:

R="OWNER/REPO"   # e.g. pjt222/agent-almanac

Procedure

Step 1: Preflight — auth and admin

Confirm the CLI is authenticated and the account has admin on the repo. Non-admins get partial data (403 on rulesets, Actions, and security endpoints), which silently understates the posture.

gh auth status
gh api "repos/$R" --jq '{full_name, admin: .permissions.admin, visibility}'

Expected: gh auth status shows a logged-in account; the second call prints admin: true.

On failure: If not authenticated, run gh auth login (or set GH_TOKEN). If admin: false, stop and note in the report that findings are incomplete — a non-admin cannot read ruleset internals or Actions permissions, so absence of a control cannot be distinguished from lack of access.

Step 2: Repo basics — visibility, merge toggles, collaborators

gh api "repos/$R" --jq '{visibility, private, allow_forking,
  default_branch, allow_merge_commit, allow_squash_merge,
  allow_rebase_merge, delete_branch_on_merge}'

# Direct collaborators and their effective role
gh api "repos/$R/collaborators?affiliation=direct" \
  --jq '.[] | {login, role_name}'

Expected: JSON for the repo toggles plus one line per direct collaborator with role_name (admin/maintain/write/triage/read).

On failure: A 403 on collaborators means the token lacks admin; note it and continue. Record visibility — it changes which features are free: on public repos secret scanning, push protection, CodeQL, and dependency review are free; the paid GHAS/Secret Protection products are private/org-only, so their absence on a public repo is not a gap.

Step 3: Ref protection — check rulesets AND classic (both)

A repo can be protected by a ruleset, by classic branch protection, by both, or by neither. Rulesets are the actively-developed path and are free on public user-owned repos. You MUST check both — a repo with only a ruleset returns 404 on the classic endpoint and vice versa.

b=$(gh api "repos/$R" --jq '.default_branch')

# (a) Rulesets — list, then inspect each active one's rules + bypass list
gh api "repos/$R/rulesets" --jq '.[] | {id, name, enforcement, target}'
# For each id from above:
#   gh api "repos/$R/rulesets/<id>" \
#     --jq '{name, enforcement,
#            rules: [.rules[].type],
#            bypass: [.bypass_actors[] | {actor_type, bypass_mode}]}'

# (b) Classic branch protection on the default branch (404 = none)
gh api -i "repos/$R/branches/$b/protection" 2>/dev/null | head -1
gh api "repos/$R/branches/$b/protection" \
  --jq '{required_status_checks: .required_status_checks.checks,
         strict: .required_status_checks.strict,
         enforce_admins: .enforce_admins.enabled,
         required_reviews: .required_pull_request_reviews.required_approving_review_count,
         linear: .required_linear_history.enabled,
         signatures: .required_signatures.enabled,
         allow_force_pushes: .allow_force_pushes.enabled,
         allow_deletions: .allow_deletions.enabled}' 2>/dev/null \
  || echo "no classic branch protection"

Expected: Either a ruleset with rules such as deletion, non_fast_forward, pull_request, required_status_checks, or a classic protection object, or an explicit "none" from both.

On failure: A 404 on either endpoint means that mechanism is not configured — it is a valid data point, not an error; record "none" for that mechanism. Note the rule set from the ruleset rules[].type list and the bypass_actors. Remember: the default GITHUB_TOKEN / github-actions[bot] can never be a bypass actor by design — if the repo auto-commits AND has required_status_checks/pull_request rules with no Integration (GitHub App) or DeployKey bypass actor, flag that the bot push must be 403ing (a real finding).

Step 4: Actions security — token defaults and PR approval

# Actions enablement + allowed-actions policy (+ SHA-pinning policy)
gh api "repos/$R/actions/permissions" \
  --jq '{enabled, allowed_actions, sha_pinning_required}'

# Default GITHUB_TOKEN permissions + can-the-bot-approve-PRs
gh api "repos/$R/actions/permissions/workflow" \
  --jq '{default_workflow_permissions, can_approve_pull_request_reviews}'

Expected: default_workflow_permissions is read (hardened) or write (permissive default), and can_approve_pull_request_reviews is false (hardened) or true (a review-bypass vector).

On failure: 403 means non-admin — note it. If allowed_actions is all, any action can run (looser); selected with a pinned allow-list is tighter — but note that selected + github_owned_allowed still blocks non-GitHub actions like stefanzweifel/git-auto-commit-action unless explicitly allow-listed. sha_pinning_required may be absent/null on repos that never set the 2025-08 policy — record as "not enforced". Per-workflow permissions: blocks live in the YAML, not the API; note that the API shows only the repo default, which is a default (not a cap) for same-repo push events.

Step 5: Code and supply-chain features

# Dependabot alerts + dependency graph (204 = ON, 404 = OFF)
gh api -i "repos/$R/vulnerability-alerts" 2>/dev/null | head -1

# Dependabot security updates (auto fix PRs) — separate toggle
gh api "repos/$R/automated-security-fixes" \
  --jq '{enabled, paused}' 2>/dev/null || echo "automated-security-fixes: off/unavailable"

# Secret scanning + push protection status (security_and_analysis has NO
# code-scanning field — CodeQL is probed separately below)
gh api "repos/$R" --jq '.security_and_analysis'

# CodeQL code scanning — default setup state (its own endpoint)
gh api "repos/$R/code-scanning/default-setup" --jq '.state' 2>/dev/null \
  || echo "code-scanning default setup: not configured / no access"

# Dependabot version updates config present?
gh api -i "repos/$R/contents/.github/dependabot.yml" 2>/dev/null | head -1

# SECURITY.md — GitHub auto-detects it at root, docs/, OR .github/.
# Present if ANY of the three returns 200; only a GAP if all three 404.
for p in SECURITY.md docs/SECURITY.md .github/SECURITY.md; do
  echo "$p: $(gh api -i "repos/$R/contents/$p" 2>/dev/null | head -1)"
done

# Private vulnerability reporting — status is a 200 body {"enabled": bool},
# NOT a 204/404 toggle, so read the field directly.
gh api "repos/$R/private-vulnerability-reporting" --jq '.enabled' 2>/dev/null \
  || echo "PVR: not accessible"

# Open Dependabot alert count — needs security_events scope; may 403
gh api "repos/$R/dependabot/alerts?state=open" --jq 'length' 2>/dev/null \
  || echo "dependabot/alerts: 403 (needs security_events scope) — skipped"

Expected: vulnerability-alertsHTTP/2.0 204 when enabled; security_and_analysis shows secret_scanning.status and secret_scanning_push_protection.status as enabled on a hardened public repo; code-scanning/default-setup .state is configured when CodeQL default setup is on; automated-security-fixesenabled: true; the dependabot.yml probe returns 200 when present; at least one of the three SECURITY.md paths returns 200 when a policy file exists; private-vulnerability-reporting .enabled prints true when PVR is on.

On failure: vulnerability-alerts returning 404 = Dependabot alerts OFF (a gap). Remember alerts != fixes: alerts on with automated-security-fixes off means nothing is auto-remediated — flag both separately. On public repos secret_scanning is usually already enabled by default; if security_and_analysis omits the field entirely, treat it as advisory (public-repo default on) but note the API did not confirm it. code-scanning/default-setup 404/non-configured = CodeQL default setup not enabled (a recommended-tier gap on a public repo, where code scanning is free). For SECURITY.md, record a GAP only if all three paths 404 — a 200 on root, docs/, or .github/ all count as present. private-vulnerability-reporting empty/false = PVR off; a non-JSON or error response = not accessible. dependabot/alerts 403 is expected without security_events scope — record "not assessed", not "0".

Step 6: Produce the tiered PASS/GAP report

Classify every gathered fact into three tiers and mark PASS (control present), GAP (control absent), or N/A (not applicable, e.g. a paid private-repo feature on a public repo). Distinguish a required check from an advisory one: a status check that runs but is not listed in the ruleset's required_status_checks does not gate anything — it is advisory only.

Interpret the solo-maintainer lockout. Cross-reference the Step 2 direct-collaborator count with the Step 3 required_approving_review_count. On a single-maintainer repo, required_approving_review_count >= 1 (and require_code_owner_review with a sole owner) is unsatisfiable — you cannot approve your own PR — so on an auto-commit repo it is a self-lockout / functional breakage, not a PASS. Flag it as a GAP-with-caveat, and note that a ruleset (unlike classic branch protection's enforce_admins) does not auto-exempt the admin: the sole maintainer stays blocked unless explicitly added to the ruleset bypass_actors.

Do not publish the raw report into the audited repo. The PASS/GAP list enumerates exact, admin-only-visible gaps (no ruleset, GITHUB_TOKEN can approve PRs, no push protection) — a pre-remediation vulnerability roadmap. While any GAP is open, keep the findings local/private (a gitignored file, a private gist, or a draft GitHub Security Advisory); never commit it into the public repo being audited (contrast security-audit-codebase, which writes SECURITY_AUDIT_REPORT.md into the project root — do NOT copy that pattern here). Redact ruleset / App ID / bypass-actor identifiers before any public write.

# GitHub Repo Security Assessment — OWNER/REPO
Date: YYYY-MM-DD   Visibility: public   Auditor role: admin

## Essential
- [PASS] Ruleset with deletion + non_fast_forward on default branch
- [GAP]  default_workflow_permissions = write (should be read)
- [PASS] can_approve_pull_request_reviews = false
- [GAP]  actions/checkout pinned to @v4 tag, not a 40-char SHA
- [PASS] Dependabot alerts (204) + security updates (enabled)
- [GAP]  No .github/dependabot.yml (version updates off — keeps
         github-actions action pins fresh; essential supply-chain hygiene)
- [PASS] Secret scanning + push protection enabled

## Recommended
- [N/A]  required_status_checks — none (no CI gate configured)
- [PASS] CodeQL default setup: configured
- [PASS] SECURITY.md present (.github/) + PVR enabled

## Advanced
- [GAP]  sha_pinning_required: not enforced
- [N/A]  Required signed commits — would block the auto-commit bot
- [N/A]  Paid GHAS / Secret Protection — public repo, features free

## Notes
- Auto-commit bot: ruleset has NO App/DeployKey bypass actor; if
  required_status_checks were added the github-actions[bot] push would 403.
- Solo maintainer (1 direct collaborator): required_approving_review_count
  is 0 — correct; any value >= 1 would be an unsatisfiable self-lockout and
  a ruleset would NOT auto-exempt the admin.
- Dependabot open alerts: not assessed (token lacks security_events).
- This report is kept local/private — not committed into the audited repo
  while GAPs remain open.

Expected: A written report with every fact placed in a tier and marked PASS / GAP / N/A, plus a Notes section for auth gaps, advisory-only checks, and the auto-commit-bot bypass interaction.

On failure: If some endpoints 403'd, still emit the report but mark those rows "not assessed" and state the missing scope/role at the top — never record an unreadable control as a GAP (absence of access is not absence of the control).

Validation

  • gh auth status confirmed and admin on the repo verified (or the report is explicitly flagged incomplete)
  • visibility recorded (drives which features are free vs N/A)
  • BOTH rulesets AND classic branch protection were queried (not just one)
  • Actions permissions and permissions/workflow both read
  • Dependabot alerts, security updates, secret scanning, and push protection each checked as separate toggles
  • CodeQL default setup queried via code-scanning/default-setup (not inferred from security_and_analysis, which has no such field)
  • SECURITY.md checked at all three auto-detected paths (root, docs/, .github/) — GAP only if all three 404
  • Private vulnerability reporting read from the .enabled body field (not a 204/404 toggle)
  • Solo-maintainer lockout interpreted: collaborator count cross-referenced with required_approving_review_count
  • Every finding is tiered and marked PASS / GAP / N/A
  • Report kept local/private while GAPs are open — NOT committed into the audited public repo
  • No setting was changed — this audit is strictly read-only

Common Pitfalls

  • Checking only rulesets or only classic protection: They are independent mechanisms. A repo protected by a ruleset returns 404 on branches/{b}/protection; concluding "unprotected" from that alone is wrong. Always query both.
  • Some endpoints 403 without security scope/admin: dependabot/alerts needs security_events; rulesets and Actions permissions need admin. A 403 is "not assessed", not a GAP — recording it as a gap fabricates a finding.
  • A green check that is not REQUIRED is advisory only: A CI job that runs and passes gates nothing unless its context is in the ruleset's required_status_checks. Do not report a running check as a protective control.
  • Alerts != fixes: Dependabot alerts (vulnerability-alerts, 204) only detect; security updates (automated-security-fixes) open the fix PRs. Enabling one does not enable the other — assess both.
  • Treating paid-feature absence as a gap on a public repo: Secret scanning, push protection, CodeQL, and dependency review are free on public repos; GHAS / Secret Protection / Code Security are private/org products. Their absence on a public repo is N/A, not a gap.
  • Misreading the auto-commit-bot bypass: The default GITHUB_TOKEN / github-actions[bot] can never be a ruleset bypass actor. If a repo auto-commits to a branch that has required_status_checks or a pull_request rule with no Integration/DeployKey bypass actor, the bot push is being rejected — surface it as a real finding.
  • Reading the API default as a hard cap: default_workflow_permissions is the repo default; per-job permissions: in the workflow YAML can raise or drop it for same-repo events. The API cannot show the effective per-workflow grant — note that limitation.
  • Probing SECURITY.md at only one path: GitHub auto-detects the policy at the repo root, docs/, OR .github/. Checking only one path and recording a 404 as a GAP fabricates a finding — a repo with SECURITY.md at root is fully compliant. Only record a GAP if all three 404.
  • Inferring CodeQL from security_and_analysis: that object carries secret_scanning*, dependabot_security_updates, and advanced_security — but no code-scanning field. CodeQL default-setup state comes only from the code-scanning/default-setup endpoint; never claim a CodeQL PASS/GAP the skill did not actually probe.
  • Marking a solo review requirement as PASS: on a one-maintainer repo, required_approving_review_count >= 1 is an unsatisfiable self-lockout, not a protective control — and a ruleset (unlike classic enforce_admins) will not auto-exempt the admin. Report it as a functional-breakage GAP.

Related Skills

  • harden-github-repo-security - apply the fixes this audit surfaces
  • security-audit-codebase - complementary in-tree secret/dependency scan
  • configure-git-repository - foundational repo + .gitignore setup

GitHub Repository

pjt222/agent-almanac
Pfad: i18n/de/skills/assess-github-repo-security
0
agentsagentskillsai-assisted-developmentclaude-codeskillsteams
FAQ

Häufig gestellte Fragen

Was ist der Skill assess-github-repo-security?

assess-github-repo-security ist ein Claude Skill von pjt222. Skills bündeln Anweisungen und Ressourcen, die Claude bei Bedarf lädt, um Aufgaben rund um assess-github-repo-security ohne zusätzliche Eingaben auszuführen.

Wie installiere ich assess-github-repo-security?

Verwende die Installationsbefehle auf dieser Seite: Füge assess-github-repo-security als Plugin zu Claude Code hinzu oder klone das Repository in dein Skills-Verzeichnis. Starte Claude danach neu, damit der Skill geladen wird.

Zu welcher Kategorie gehört assess-github-repo-security?

assess-github-repo-security gehört zur Kategorie Dokumentation.

Kann ich assess-github-repo-security kostenlos nutzen?

Ja. assess-github-repo-security ist auf AIMCP gelistet und kann kostenlos installiert werden.

Verwandte Skills

railway-docs
Dokumentation

Diese Fähigkeit ruft aktuelle Railway-Dokumentation ab, um Fragen zu Funktionen, Funktionalität oder spezifischen Dokumentations-URLs zu beantworten. Sie stellt sicher, dass Entwickler genaue, aktuelle Informationen direkt aus den offiziellen Quellen von Railway erhalten. Nutzen Sie sie, wenn Nutzer fragen, wie Railway funktioniert oder auf Railway-Dokumentation verweisen.

Skill ansehen
n8n-code-python
Dokumentation

Dieses Claude Skill bietet fachkundige Anleitung zum Schreiben von Python-Code in n8n-Code-Nodes, insbesondere für die Verwendung der Python-Standardbibliothek und den Umgang mit n8ns spezieller Syntax wie `_input`, `_json` und `_node`. Es hilft Entwicklern, die Grenzen von Python innerhalb von n8n zu verstehen, empfiehlt JavaScript für die meisten Workflows und bietet gleichzeitig Python-Lösungen für spezifische Datenumwandlungsanforderungen.

Skill ansehen
archon
Dokumentation

Die Archon-Funktion bietet semantische Suche auf RAG-Basis und Projektmanagement über eine REST-API. Nutzen Sie sie für das Abfragen von Dokumentation, die Verwaltung hierarchischer Projekte/Aufgaben und die Durchführung von Wissenabruf mit Dokumenten-Upload-Fähigkeiten. Priorisieren Sie stets Archon zuerst bei der Suche in externer Dokumentation, bevor Sie andere Quellen verwenden.

Skill ansehen
n8n-code-javascript
Dokumentation

Diese Claude-Skill bietet fachkundige Anleitung für das Schreiben von JavaScript-Code in n8n-Code-Nodes. Sie behandelt wesentliche n8n-spezifische Syntax wie `$input`/`$json`-Variablen, HTTP-Helfer und DateTime-Verarbeitung und hilft bei der Fehlerbehebung häufiger Probleme. Nutzen Sie sie bei der Entwicklung von n8n-Workflows, die eine benutzerdefinierte JavaScript-Verarbeitung in Code-Nodes erfordern.

Skill ansehen