Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to docdyhr/simplenote-mcp-server. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/docdyhr/simplenote-mcp-server/main/.claude/skills/github-actions-hardening/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/docdyhr/simplenote-mcp-serverWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/docdyhr/simplenote-mcp-server/github-actions-hardening)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/docdyhr/simplenote-mcp-server/github-actions-hardening"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/docdyhr/simplenote-mcp-server/github-actions-hardening/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/docdyhr/simplenote-mcp-server/github-actions-hardening"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/docdyhr/simplenote-mcp-server/github-actions-hardening.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00191 | $0.02282 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00076 | $0.00913 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00456 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00228 |
Grade A, and why
github-actions-hardening scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to github-actions-hardening — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 161 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
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, orissue_commenttriggers - Questions about
GITHUB_TOKENpermissions or thepermissions: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:
What ships with it
5 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- yesterday First seen · 161 lines · 191 tokens per session scan A 31a8e7483d97
github-actions-hardening is a skill published in the GitHub repository docdyhr/simplenote-mcp-server (21 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 191 tokens to every session and 2,282 once invoked, about $0.0008 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to github-actions-hardening, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
api-integration-architect
Design, implement, debug, and optimize API integrations with expert-level patterns for REST, GraphQL, webhooks, and authentication flows.
authentication-patterns
Authentication patterns: session vs JWT vs OAuth comparison, provider selection (NextAuth, Clerk, Supabase Auth), security checklist, and common mistakes. Use when implementing auth, reviewing auth flows, or choosing auth providers.
api-shape-explorer
Generate multiple radically different interface designs for a module using parallel sub-agents. Use when user wants to design an API, explore interface options, compare module shapes, or mentions "design it twice".
offensive-api-abuse
Advanced API exploitation methodology focused on business logic abuse and sophisticated attack patterns that bypass traditional security controls. Covers business logic bypass through API call chaining and workflow manipulation. Addresses GraphQL-specific attacks including batching for credential brute-force, query…
fastcrud
Use when building or modifying CRUD endpoints with FastCRUD (the fastcrud PyPI package) in a FastAPI project — covers FastCRUD, crudrouter, EndpointCreator, FilterConfig, JoinConfig, auto-relationship detection, the filter operator syntax (gte, in, ilike, etc.), cursor pagination, soft delete, and how to avoid N+1…
api-testing-patterns
Comprehensive API testing patterns including contract testing, REST/GraphQL testing, and integration testing. Use when testing APIs or designing API test strategies.