feat: Initial release #2

amanstep · 2026-01-14T14:28:13Z

No description provided.

claude · 2026-01-14T14:35:35Z

Claude finished @amanstep's task —— View job

Pull Request Review: feat: Initial release

I've completed a comprehensive review of this pull request against the step-security standards and requirements.

Review Progress:

Determine action type (node/docker/composite)
Review general compliance points
Review type-specific requirements
Security vulnerability scan
Subscription check verification
Final assessment and recommendations

Action Type: Node-based GitHub Action

✅ PASSING REQUIREMENTS

General Compliance:

✅ License present with StepSecurity copyright (LICENSE file)
✅ action.yml present with author: 'step-security'
✅ SECURITY.md file present
✅ No FUNDING.yml/funding.yml file
✅ Required workflow files present:
- .github/workflows/auto_cherry_pick.yml ✓
- .github/workflows/actions_release.yml ✓
✅ No renovate.json file
✅ No PULL_REQUEST.md file
✅ No ISSUE_TEMPLATE folder
✅ No CHANGELOG.md file
✅ No .vscode folder
✅ Subscription check properly implemented at src/main.ts:13-26

Node-Specific Requirements:

✅ Repository field contains step-security organization (package.json:13)
✅ All dependencies appear to be used in the code
✅ dist/ folder present with compiled code
✅ Build script properly configured (yarn build in workflows)

Security Assessment:

✅ No obvious security vulnerabilities found
✅ Subscription validation properly implemented
✅ No hardcoded secrets or credentials
✅ Proper error handling for API calls

❌ FAILING REQUIREMENTS

package.json author field (Critical)
- Current: "author": "CrazyMax" (line 21)
- Required: "author": "step-security"
README.md semver usage (Minor)
- Examples use @v4 instead of major version only
- Lines 49, 76 show step-security/ghaction-github-status@v4
- Should be: step-security/ghaction-github-status@v4 → @v4

📝 RECOMMENDATIONS

Fix package.json author: Change author field from "CrazyMax" to "step-security"
Update README examples: Replace @v4 with major version only syntax
Consider adding Co-Authored-By: Since this appears to be based on CrazyMax's work, consider adding a Co-Authored-By trailer in commit messages

🎯 OVERALL ASSESSMENT

This is a well-structured GitHub Action that follows most step-security standards. The subscription check is properly implemented, security practices are followed, and the required workflows are in place. The main issues are metadata-related (author field and versioning examples) rather than functional problems.

Priority: Address the package.json author field before merging, as this is a core requirement for step-security actions.

claude · 2026-01-14T14:40:01Z

Claude finished @amanstep's task —— View job

Pull Request Review: feat: Initial release

I've completed a comprehensive review of this pull request against the step-security standards and requirements.

Review Progress:

Determine action type (node/docker/composite)
Review general compliance points
Review type-specific requirements
Security vulnerability scan
Subscription check verification
Final assessment and recommendations

Action Type: Node-based GitHub Action

✅ PASSING REQUIREMENTS

General Compliance:

✅ License present with StepSecurity copyright (LICENSE file)
✅ action.yml present with author: 'step-security'
✅ SECURITY.md file present
✅ No FUNDING.yml/funding.yml file
✅ Required workflow files present:
- .github/workflows/auto_cherry_pick.yml ✓
- .github/workflows/actions_release.yml ✓
✅ No renovate.json file
✅ No PULL_REQUEST.md file
✅ No ISSUE_TEMPLATE folder
✅ No CHANGELOG.md file
✅ No .vscode folder
✅ Subscription check properly implemented at src/main.ts:13-26

Node-Specific Requirements:

✅ Repository field contains step-security organization (package.json:13)
✅ All dependencies appear to be used in the code
✅ dist/ folder present with compiled code
✅ Build script properly configured (yarn build in workflows)

Security Assessment:

✅ No obvious security vulnerabilities found
✅ Subscription validation properly implemented
✅ No hardcoded secrets or credentials
✅ Proper error handling for API calls

❌ FAILING REQUIREMENTS

package.json author field (Critical)
- Current: "author": "CrazyMax" (line 21)
- Required: "author": "step-security"
README.md semver usage (Minor)
- Examples use @v4 instead of major version only
- Lines 44, 71 show step-security/ghaction-github-status@v4
- Should be: step-security/ghaction-github-status@v4 → @v4

📝 RECOMMENDATIONS

Fix package.json author: Change author field from "CrazyMax" to "step-security"
Update README examples: Replace @v4 with major version only syntax
Consider adding Co-Authored-By: Since this appears to be based on CrazyMax's work, consider adding a Co-Authored-By trailer in commit messages

🎯 OVERALL ASSESSMENT

This is a well-structured GitHub Action that follows most step-security standards. The subscription check is properly implemented, security practices are followed, and the required workflows are in place. The main issues are metadata-related (author field and versioning examples) rather than functional problems.

Priority: Address the package.json author field before merging, as this is a core requirement for step-security actions.

claude · 2026-01-14T14:41:19Z

Claude finished @amanstep's task —— View job

Pull Request Review: feat: Initial release

I've completed a comprehensive review of this pull request against the step-security standards and requirements.

Review Progress:

Determine action type (node/docker/composite)
Review general compliance points
Review type-specific requirements
Security vulnerability scan
Subscription check verification
Final assessment and recommendations

Action Type: Node-based GitHub Action

✅ PASSING REQUIREMENTS

General Compliance:

✅ License present with StepSecurity copyright (LICENSE file)
✅ action.yml present with author: 'step-security'
✅ SECURITY.md file present
✅ No FUNDING.yml/funding.yml file
✅ Required workflow files present:
- .github/workflows/auto_cherry_pick.yml ✓
- .github/workflows/actions_release.yml ✓
✅ No renovate.json file
✅ No PULL_REQUEST.md file
✅ No ISSUE_TEMPLATE folder
✅ No CHANGELOG.md file
✅ No .vscode folder
✅ Subscription check properly implemented at src/main.ts:13-26

Node-Specific Requirements:

✅ Repository field contains step-security organization (package.json:13)
✅ Author field set to "step-security" (package.json:21)
✅ All dependencies appear to be used in the code
✅ dist/ folder present with compiled code
✅ Build script properly configured (yarn build in workflows)

Security Assessment:

✅ No obvious security vulnerabilities found
✅ Subscription validation properly implemented
✅ No hardcoded secrets or credentials
✅ Proper error handling for API calls

❌ FAILING REQUIREMENTS

README.md semver usage (Minor)
- Lines 44, 71 show step-security/ghaction-github-status@v4
- Should be: step-security/ghaction-github-status@v4 (major version only)
- Current examples use complete semver tag instead of major version only

📝 RECOMMENDATIONS

Update README examples: Replace @v4 with major version only syntax on lines 44 and 71
Consider adding more test coverage: The action has basic tests but could benefit from more comprehensive test scenarios

🎯 OVERALL ASSESSMENT

This is a well-structured and compliant GitHub Action that follows step-security standards. The subscription check is properly implemented, security practices are followed, and all required workflows and file structures are in place. The only issue is a minor documentation problem with semver usage examples in the README.

Priority: The README semver issue is minor and doesn't affect functionality, but should be addressed for consistency with step-security standards.

Raj-StepSecurity · 2026-01-14T17:51:53Z

.github/workflows/actions_release.yml

+        default: "yarn build"
+      yarn_version:
+        required: false
+        type: string


better to have a default value so that anyone giving input wont have to check or give a wrong one

Raj-StepSecurity · 2026-01-14T17:52:02Z

.github/workflows/audit_package.yml

+        required: false
+        type: string
+        default: "npm"
+      yarn_version:


better to have a default value so that anyone giving input wont have to check or give a wrong one

.github/workflows/auto_cherry_pick.yml

.github/workflows/audit_package.yml

.github/workflows/ci.yml

LICENSE

claude · 2026-01-15T06:07:00Z

Claude finished @amanstep's task —— View job

Pull Request Review: feat: Initial release

I've completed a comprehensive review of this pull request against step-security standards and requirements.

Review Progress:

Determine action type (node/docker/composite)
Review general compliance points
Review type-specific requirements
Security vulnerability scan
Subscription check verification
Address review comments from Raj-StepSecurity
Final assessment and recommendations

Action Type: Node-based GitHub Action (using node20 runtime)

✅ PASSING REQUIREMENTS

General Compliance:

✅ License present with StepSecurity copyright (LICENSE file - lines 3-4)
✅ action.yml present with author: 'step-security' (action.yml:4)
✅ SECURITY.md file present
✅ No FUNDING.yml/funding.yml file
✅ Required workflow files present:
- .github/workflows/auto_cherry_pick.yml ✓
- .github/workflows/actions_release.yml ✓
✅ No renovate.json file
✅ No PULL_REQUEST.md file
✅ No ISSUE_TEMPLATE folder
✅ No CHANGELOG.md file
✅ No .vscode folder
✅ README.md semver usage correct (lines 44, 71 use @v4 major version)
✅ Subscription check properly implemented (src/main.ts:13-26)

Node-Specific Requirements:

✅ Repository field contains step-security organization (package.json:13)
✅ Author field set to "step-security" (package.json:21)
✅ All dependencies appear to be used in the code:
- @actions/core: Used in main.ts for logging and inputs
- @actions/http-client: Used in githubstatus.ts for API calls
- axios: Used in main.ts for subscription validation
- chalk: Used in main.ts for colored output
✅ dist/ folder present with compiled code
✅ Build script properly configured (yarn build in workflows)

Security Assessment:

✅ Subscription validation properly implemented with correct URL
✅ No hardcoded secrets or credentials
✅ Proper error handling for API calls
✅ Timeout configured for subscription check (3000ms)
✅ No obvious security vulnerabilities found

📋 REVIEW COMMENTS FROM RAJ-STEPSECURITY

All review comments have been addressed:

Default values for workflow inputs ✅ RESOLVED
- All workflows now have proper default values for all inputs
Yarn reference ✅ RESOLVED
- Workflows correctly use "yarn" throughout
Dependabot check ✅ ALREADY IMPLEMENTED
- ci.yml:24 includes dependabot conditional logic
LICENSE update ✅ RESOLVED
- LICENSE includes both original author (CrazyMax) and StepSecurity copyrights

🎯 OVERALL ASSESSMENT

This GitHub Action is FULLY COMPLIANT with step-security standards. The action:

Follows all required file structure and naming conventions
Implements proper subscription validation
Contains no security vulnerabilities
Has all required workflows and configurations
Uses appropriate dependency management
Maintains proper attribution to original author while establishing StepSecurity ownership

Recommendation: ✅ APPROVE FOR MERGE

This is a well-structured and secure GitHub Action that meets all step-security requirements. All previous review feedback has been addressed, and the action is ready for production use.

feat: Initial release

523ae50

amanstep added the review-required label Jan 14, 2026

docs: update readme

315118a

fix: author updated in package.json

3b4cbd6

Raj-StepSecurity reviewed Jan 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

.github/workflows/auto_cherry_pick.yml Show resolved Hide resolved

Raj-StepSecurity reviewed Jan 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

.github/workflows/audit_package.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Raj-StepSecurity reviewed Jan 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

.github/workflows/ci.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Raj-StepSecurity reviewed Jan 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

LICENSE Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fix: addressed review comments

e72f52b

varunsh-coder approved these changes Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

amanstep merged commit 0a82828 into main Jan 15, 2026
15 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

feat: Initial release #2

feat: Initial release #2

Uh oh!

amanstep commented Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Raj-StepSecurity Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Raj-StepSecurity Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

feat: Initial release #2

feat: Initial release #2

Uh oh!

Conversation

amanstep commented Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 14, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pull Request Review: feat: Initial release

Review Progress:

✅ PASSING REQUIREMENTS

General Compliance:

Node-Specific Requirements:

Security Assessment:

❌ FAILING REQUIREMENTS

📝 RECOMMENDATIONS

🎯 OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 14, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pull Request Review: feat: Initial release

Review Progress:

✅ PASSING REQUIREMENTS

General Compliance:

Node-Specific Requirements:

Security Assessment:

❌ FAILING REQUIREMENTS

📝 RECOMMENDATIONS

🎯 OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 14, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pull Request Review: feat: Initial release

Review Progress:

✅ PASSING REQUIREMENTS

General Compliance:

Node-Specific Requirements:

Security Assessment:

❌ FAILING REQUIREMENTS

📝 RECOMMENDATIONS

🎯 OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Uh oh!

Raj-StepSecurity Jan 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Raj-StepSecurity Jan 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pull Request Review: feat: Initial release

Review Progress:

✅ PASSING REQUIREMENTS

General Compliance:

Node-Specific Requirements:

Security Assessment:

📋 REVIEW COMMENTS FROM RAJ-STEPSECURITY

🎯 OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

claude bot commented Jan 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

claude bot commented Jan 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

claude bot commented Jan 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

claude bot commented Jan 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading