Tools
GitHub Repository Security Audit
Find out whether you can trust a library before adding it to your stack
| Fact Sheet | |
|---|---|
| ¿Qué es? | A Claude skill that assesses the risk of a repository before integrating it |
| Price | Free |
| Licence | MIT |
| Version | 1.1.1 |
| Languages | Spanish and English |
| Repository | github.com/Consultora-AMDT/claude-github-security-audit |
| Requires | Claude.ai, Claude Desktop or Claude Code |
The problem
A library appears that does exactly what your team needs. It has stars, the documentation is well-maintained and the code, at first glance, looks clean. Should it go into production?
That decision is made every day based on two fragile indicators.
The first is the number of stars. These indicate how many people found the project interesting at some point, not whether anyone is still maintaining it, nor whether the last commit was fourteen months ago, nor whether the maintainer replies when contacted.
The second is the documentation, written by whoever has a vested interest in you installing it.
Neither of these indicates that the project depends on a single person who cannot be traced, that there is a forgotten credential in the commit history, or that the licence prevents you from charging for work built on top of it.
The information exists, but it’s scattered across eight tabs in the repository, a licence file, a dependencies manifest and a search tool. Hardly anyone spends twenty minutes on this for every candidate, so the check is skipped and the tool is chosen on a hunch.
This skill takes care of those twenty minutes.
What it looks at, and why
Claude reads the repository and scores it across seven dimensions. Each one answers a different question about a different risk.
First things first: do you need it?
The first phase doesn’t analyse security. It asks whether the problem that repository solves is already covered by something you already have. If it is, the analysis stops there and tells you so. It’s the cheapest phase and avoids the other six more often than you’d think.
| The seven dimensions | |
|---|---|
| Project health | Activity, number of maintainers, commit frequency, releases, documentation and continuous integration. The question is whether anyone is still on the ball. |
| Code security | Credentials hard-coded in the code, dangerous dynamic execution, misconfigured workflows, dependency hygiene, and whether the software starts up securely when left unconfigured. This is the dimension that carries the most weight. |
| Supply chain | Who maintains it, whether that person is identifiable, whether commits are signed, whether changes are reviewed before being merged, and what happens if that person disappears. |
| Code quality | Testing, typing, technical documentation and error handling. This is not a matter of security but of future maintenance. |
| Licence | Whether you are legally permitted to use it, and what obligations this entails. Some licences extend to commercial work built on top of the code. An unlicensed repository grants you no permission whatsoever. |
| Integration environment | This applies when the repository is to be run within your environment with access to real data. What permissions does it require, does it send information externally, and what happens when it fails? |
| External indicators | Published audits, security advisories, previous incidents and inclusion in reference lists. This aspect is purely a bonus. |
The verdict is what makes the difference
A checklist provides you with thirty data points and leaves the decision up to you. Here, a recommendation is given, along with its score and the reasoning behind it.
| Verdict | What this means |
|---|---|
| ADOPT | Integrate it. Follow its posts as you would with any other service. |
| EVALUATE | Integrate it with explicit precautions. Set out in writing which risks you have accepted and review this after ninety days. |
| CAUTION | Only if there is no alternative. Isolate it and read the code before deploying it to production. |
| AVOID | Do not integrate it. Look for something else. |
Some findings override the maths. An unlicensed repository is ruled out no matter how well it scores on everything else, just like one with genuine credentials in the code. This is deliberate: the averages hide precisely the finding that should have given you pause.
Qué no hace
It’s worth saying this before you’re disappointed – and all the more so when it comes to security.
It does not execute the code or uncover unknown vulnerabilities
It is neither static analysis nor a penetration test. It analyses what is published: code, manifests, workflows, licence and history. A backdoor written to blend in with ordinary code cannot be detected by reading these. A specialised tool is required for that task.
It does not replace a human reviewer if the repository is going to handle sensitive data
The score tells you where to start looking; it does not give you permission not to look. If the code is going to handle customer data, credentials or regulated material, someone qualified must review it before it is released.
It does not audit your own code
The method assumes it is evaluating a third-party artefact, and you must decide whether to trust it. Your own repository requires different questions.
One final warning: the score reflects the state of the repository on the day it was measured. Projects can recover, and projects can deteriorate. Run the check again before making any important decisions.
How to install and use it
Download the folder for your preferred language from the repository and upload it as a skill to Claude.ai or Claude Desktop, via Settings. In Claude Code, simply copy it to your skills directory.
From there, it can be invoked using natural language, without any commands:
audit the repo https://github.com/propietario/proyecto
For a quick review, which only goes through the first three stages:
quick audit https://github.com/propietario/proyecto
The result is a self-contained HTML report, featuring a pie chart showing the seven dimensions, a table for each phase detailing the measurements and scores, the findings requiring attention, and the reasoned verdict.
Licence, origin and maintenance
MIT Licence. You may use, modify, distribute and incorporate it into your own work, including for commercial purposes, on the sole condition that you retain the copyright notice.
Origin of the method. The approach draws on the public skills from Trail of Bits, and in particular on two of their ideas: auditing default settings that fail in the open, and not just declared vulnerabilities; and setting out in advance the excuses that an auditor must refuse to accept. ‘It’s open source, so it’s secure’ is the one you’ll hear most often.
Maintenance. There is no roadmap or support commitment. The tool is published because it is useful. The repository’s issue tracker is the place to report a bug or a verdict that does not add up.
