Supporting material availability

This AAS tree bundles the inline methodology only. The contributed guide named a foundations file, action profiles, cross-file resolution and nine vector reference files, but those files and an independently verified upstream source are absent. Do not claim they were read. Apply the inline checks below and report unsupported action-version details as unverified; recover external materials only from a verified source with a confirmed license.

Agentic Actions Auditor

Static security analysis guidance for GitHub Actions workflows that invoke AI coding agents. This skill teaches you how to discover workflow files locally or from remote GitHub repositories, identify AI action steps, follow cross-file references to composite actions and reusable workflows that may contain hidden AI agents, capture security-relevant configuration, and detect attack vectors where attacker-controlled input reaches an AI agent running in a CI/CD pipeline.

When to Use

• Auditing a repository's GitHub Actions workflows for AI agent security
• Reviewing CI/CD configurations that invoke Claude Code Action, Gemini CLI, or OpenAI Codex
• Checking whether attacker-controlled input can reach AI agent prompts
• Evaluating agentic action configurations (sandbox settings, tool permissions, user allowlists)
• Assessing trigger events that expose workflows to external input (pull_request_target, issue_comment, etc.)
• Investigating data flow from GitHub event context through env: blocks to AI prompt fields

When NOT to Use

• Analyzing workflows that do NOT use any AI agent actions (use general Actions security tools instead)
• Reviewing standalone composite actions or reusable workflows outside of a caller workflow context (use this skill when analyzing a workflow that references them via uses:)
• Performing runtime prompt injection testing (this is static analysis guidance, not exploitation)
• Auditing non-GitHub CI/CD systems (Jenkins, GitLab CI, CircleCI)
• Auto-fixing or modifying workflow files (this skill reports findings, does not modify files)

Rationalizations to Reject

When auditing agentic actions, reject these common rationalizations. Each represents a reasoning shortcut that leads to missed findings.

1. "It only runs on PRs from maintainers" Wrong because it ignores pull_request_target, issue_comment, and other trigger events that expose actions to external input. Attackers do not need write access to trigger these workflows. A pull_request_target event runs in the context of the base branch, not the PR branch, meaning any external contributor can trigger it by opening a PR.

2. "We use allowed_tools to restrict what it can do" Wrong because tool restrictions can still be weaponized. Even restricted tools like echo can be abused for data exfiltration via subshell expansion (echo $(env)). A tool allowlist reduces attack surface but does not eliminate it. Limited tools != safe tools.

3. "There's no ${{ }} in the prompt, so it's safe" Wrong because this is the classic env var intermediary miss. Data flows through env: blocks to the prompt field with zero visible expressions in the prompt itself. The YAML looks clean but the AI agent still receives attacker-controlled input. This is the most commonly missed vector because reviewers only look for direct expression injection.

4. "The sandbox prevents any real damage" Wrong because sandbox misconfigurations (danger-full-access, Bash(*), --yolo) disable protections entirely. Even properly configured sandboxes leak secrets if the AI agent can read environment variables or mounted files. The sandbox boundary is only as strong as its configuration.

Audit Methodology

Follow these steps in order. Each step builds on the previous one.

Step 0: Determine Analysis Mode

If the user provides a GitHub repository URL or owner/repo identifier, use remote analysis mode. Otherwise, use local analysis mode (proceed to Step 1).

URL Parsing

Extract owner/repo and optional ref from the user's input:

…